Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Let’s delete this post and never speak of this again.

We still have time to mess this up!

“In the future, this lab will be a museum. do not touch it.”

Of course you can have champagne before noon. That’s why orange juice was invented.

Republican speaker of the house Mike Johnson is the bland and smiling face of evil.

Optimism opens the door to great things.

Republicans cannot even be trusted with their own money.

Many life forms that would benefit from greater intelligence, sadly, do not have it.

“Facilitate” is an active verb, not a weasel word.

JFC, are there no editors left at that goddamn rag?

Sadly, there is no cure for stupid.

Their freedom requires your slavery.

When your entire life is steeped in white supremacy, equality feels like discrimination.

Republicans do not trust women.

Speaking of republicans, is there a way for a political party to declare intellectual bankruptcy?

One way or another, he’s a liar.

Shut up, hissy kitty!

Roe is not about choice. It is about freedom.

Why is it so hard for them to condemn hate?

Republicans do not pay their debts.

The current Supreme Court is a dangerous, rogue court.

After dobbs, women are no longer free.

We’ve had enough carrots to last a lifetime. break out the sticks.

Baby steps, because the Republican Party is full of angry babies.

You are here: Home / Politics / Domestic Politics / The Wild, Wild West

The Wild, Wild West

by | 24 Comments

This post is in: 

I am sure we are going to hear more about his shortly:

Private companies and individuals would be able to buy large tracts of federal land, from sagebrush basins to high-peak hiking trails around the West, under the terms of the spending bill passed Friday by a two-vote margin in the House of Representatives.

The Spending Bill On the surface, the bill reads like the mundane nip and tuck of federal mining law its authors say it is. But lawyers who have parsed its language say the real beneficiaries could be real estate developers, whose business has become a more potent economic engine in the West than mining.

Under the existing law, a mining claim is the vehicle that allows for the extraction of so-called hard-rock metals like gold or silver.

Under the House bill passed Friday, for the first time in the history of the 133-year-old mining law individuals or companies can file and expand claims even if the land at the heart of a claim has already been stripped of its minerals or could never support a profitable mine. The measure would also lift an 11-year moratorium on the passing of claims into full ownership.

The provisions have struck fear through the West, from the resort areas of the Rockies like Aspen and Vail here in Colorado, to Park City in Utah, which are all laced with old mining claims. Critics say it could open the door for developers to use the claims to assemble large land parcels for projects like houses, hotels, ski resorts, spas or retirement communities.

As a general rule, I would support selling federal land that we have determined has no military or other use, and we have decided that we do not wish to spend the resources to make the land into a park. I don’t know if this is the wayto go about it, though, and I would want to make sure the government got fair market value.

This piece from the Sierra Club says that this new provision is just a giveaway:

On November 9, the House Rules Committee stripped Arctic Refuge and offshore drilling provisions from its version of the budget reconciliation bill. Despite this victory — which itself is only temporary — Americans have yet another reason to oppose the bill. The budget reconciliation package puts America’s treasured public lands up for sale, giving land away at virtually no cost to the mining industry and other developers. It manages to worsen the already antiquated 1872 Mining Law and defraud the American taxpayer, all while promoting a huge western land grab.

Signed into law by President Ulysses S. Grant, the 1872 Mining Law set policy for metal mining on federal public lands. The law allows private companies to buy public lands containing valuable minerals, including gold, silver, and copper, for $2.50 – $5 per acre, without paying a royalty to the taxpayer. Since 1872, more than $245 billion worth of minerals have been extracted from public lands at these below-market prices.

In 1994, Congress adopted a moratorium on the patenting of federal lands that has been renewed yearly. The House Resources Committee’s budget reconciliation bill repeals this moratorium and reinstates the patenting of public lands. If the bill passes, public lands will be back up for sale once again. The sale of public lands is expected to raise just $155 million over the next five years by selling public lands to mining companies for the low price of $1,000 an acre or fair market value of only the surface of the land – far from the true value of the minerals underneath. The proposal erodes already weak requirements that must be met before the federal government gives away the public land, enshrining an absurd “right to mine” on public lands.

Again, a lot going on here that I do not understand and don’t have all the facts about, but this is sure to be a controversial ‘development.’

Reader Interactions

24Comments

  1. 1.

    stickler

    You’re not sure?

    I don’t know if this is the wayto go about it, though, and I would want to make sure the government got fair market value.

    Here’s a useful bit of advice: if the current GOP Congressional leadership endorsed it, it is crap. Worse than your worst expectations. So far this rule has been about 99% accurate.

  2. 2.

    daveman

    I disagree that land has to have a military or other use (I don’t know what you mean there) or be a park to be of value. I live in the last best place, and one of the great things about the West is that I can find public land, undeveloped and get the heck away from everyone and everything. Thats what freedom feels like to me. Lot of critters need these lands too… but maybe that’s what you mean by other use.

    As an ecologist, I think the one of the greatest challeges facing us is how to meld our growth and development with preserving the natural and biological resources that got us this far. (on top of terrorism, democratizing the world, avian flu…) lot of work to do

  3. 3.

    Sine.Qua.Non

    It’s hideous and a giveaway, as usual, to the mining, timber and oil industries. The whole point of these “treasured national lands” is to preserve them and their ecosystems for everyone’s (national) use and enjoyment. Can’t we keep any land pristine and undeveloped or raped or it’s resources?
    House version of this so-called Deficit Reduction Bill:

    – Sell off millions of acres of public lands currently protected by the federal government at bargain-basement prices — solely for the private gain of private corporations — in one of the largest land giveaways in our nation’s history. Companies would be able to buy public lands containing valuable minerals for a tiny fraction of their market value, without paying any royalties or additional fees. Areas in or near national parks, including Yosemite, Yellowstone, and Grand Canyon, could all be at risk.
    – Deem as “adequate” an as-yet-unwritten environmental impact statement for oil shale development. State and local governments, Indian tribes, and citizens across the nation would be deprived of the opportunity to voice their concerns about oil shale exploitation, and its impacts on clean air, safe drinking water, and vulnerable ecosystems.
    – Split the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, isolating California and Hawaii from Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. Anti-environmental interests want to “judge-shop” in a new federal circuit court, where they hope judges would look the other way when environmental laws are violated. Former Governor and Senator Pete Wilson, a California Republican, has opposed such a split, calling it “environmental gerrymandering.” The vast majority of Ninth Circuit judges, including all Bush appointees, oppose splitting the circuit.
    – [Cut] The Watershed Rehabilitation Program would be eliminated, meaning a loss of $225 million that local governments use to rehabilitate aging dams and other flood control projects. The bill also eliminates the budget for popular and effective federal programs that support farm-related energy efficiency and renewable energy projects.

    Anti-Environmentalist, Richard Pombo: Kelpie Wilson has a fabulous report breaking down the miserable environmental policy real estate developer Rep. Richard Pombo has relative to destruction of excellent environmental laws and his backing of oil, mining, and timber industries.

  4. 4.

    T. Miller

    The giveaway of federal assets to politically connected corporations is similar to that in the former Soviet Union in the 1990’s. If you haven’t got a lobbyist and a friendly Congressman working directly for you, then you are being left out of the great land rush.

  5. 5.

    metalgrid

    I’m just curious:

    – Is there anything in this bill stopping private conservationist corporations and individuals from buying the land?

    – Is there anything giving preference to non-conservationist corporations and individuals to buy the land?

  6. 6.

    Doug

    There is value in large tracts of undeveloped, unimproved land. If we give it away, we’ll never get it back. Just leave it alone as all of our property under the U.S. Government. That way, maybe I can enjoy it. Maybe my kids and grandkids and greatgrandkids etc, etc, can enjoy it.

  7. 7.

    KC

    Man, as a Californian, I can only say I find this disturbing. The mountains and lands around Lake Tahoe are already under enough pressure. I can’t imagine what will happen if developers get their hands on it. Actually, it would be interesting to see the casinos and ski companies go at it with developers, after all, their businesses would probably get killed.

  8. 8.

    Bob In Pacifica

    How about that crappy swampland around New Orleans? Worthless swamps. What harm to fill in and pave over?

    When you talk about the national trust, the value may not be evident to a man of business.

  9. 9.

    Ken Hahn

    I’m afraid the Sierra Club and the enviromental lobby have done their jobs too well. The commenters seem to think all federal lands are pristine wilderness or scenic vistas reaching to the far horizons. I have no trouble with preservation and think expanding parklans is a good idea, but a lot of the land in question is trackless desert, no different from millions of acres of other trackless desert or marginal forests and woods without any special attributes. The urge to preserve evrything is a part of the belief that all private property is evil.

    While Aspen, Vail and Park City are mentioned, the true opposition is centered in the east where a microscopic percentage of land is public. Here in California, the most vocal opponents are in urban centers not in the open lands. Even Aspen, Vail and Park City are essentially playgrounds for the urban rich.

    The fluffy bunny lobby and the antibusiness lobby want an undeveloped west and eastern interests which fear competition want you to believe we are selling off the Sequoia groves and the wild rivers. They paint beautiful pictures which have the problem of being unrelated to the subject at hand.

    I do not want to seem too hostile, but the misinformation on public lands is incredible and the well financed campaigns of elitists like the Sierra Club are meant to keep it that way.

  10. 10.

    Sojourner

    The fluffy bunny lobby and the antibusiness lobby want an undeveloped west and eastern interests which fear competition want you to believe we are selling off the Sequoia groves and the wild rivers. They paint beautiful pictures which have the problem of being unrelated to the subject at hand.

    Actually, it’s simpler than that. These lands belong to the public. They are not there simply for Bush to sell at bargain basement rates to his rich friends.

  11. 11.

    CS

    Its not just the enviromentalists who are going to be pissed. I live in Utah, one of the last states with a 50+ approval rating for W and many of his supporters are going to be pissed at this. When the off-roaders find themselves cut off from their favorite trails, when the fly-fishermen can’t get to their favorite spots anymore, when the long-term ranchers find their isolated farms suddenly surrounded by oil-gas or resorts, you’ll see a strong opposition emerge.

    Since the Sierra Club and others are in the lead on this lobbying effort, I hope they’ll reach out to the guys with jeeps, the hunters, the guys with snowmobiles, and the ranchers to form an unlikely coalition but an effective one.

    Its not just the rich or the hippies who will be affected by this giveaway.

  12. 12.

    Lines

    I have no trouble with preservation and think expanding parklans is a good idea, but a lot of the land in question is trackless desert, no different from millions of acres of other trackless desert or marginal forests and woods without any special attributes. The urge to preserve evrything is a part of the belief that all private property is evil.

    Wow, you’re an ignorant twit. I live along that horrible desert you speak of. It doesn’t take trees to make lands “wild”. The deserts you are so ready to casually disregard is in fact teeming with wildlife, is open for Idiot republicans to run around on their ATV’s and 4×4’s, its open for hiking in hidden canyons and faraway hidden lakes. Wild horses, deer, elk, antelope, rabbits and more live in these areas.

    Why do you hate desert America, Ken?

  17. 17.

    Mr Furious

    “As a general rule, I would support selling federal land that we have determined has no military or other use…”

    One of the more short-sighted, worst positions you’ve so casually thrown out there, John. There should be a very HIGH standard or burden of public benefit for the sale of ANY public land, and this bullshit is clearly not it. I’d sooner sublet and allow the mining and drilling to take place on Federal land and keep it in gov’t hands and collect royalties or a hefty slice of the profits, if money is your only object. This is the worst possible solution: Selling of public land for private consumption and destruction, without any consideration for the actual value of the resources OR the land.

    An awful proposition by the government, and your default position of the matter ain’t much of an improvement.

  18. 18.

    Mr Furious

    From the NYT article:

    But supporters of the bill, including Representative Jim Gibbons, Republican of Nevada, argue that critics like Mr. Leshy are missing the point of the legislation, and that allowing more mine-claim lands to be purchased would be an economic boon to rural communities that often struggle in the boom and bust cycle of mining. “Not only is this rhetoric false, it is an affront to the rural American families whose livelihoods depend on sustained economic development…”

    Ah, bullshit. The very nature of this bill states that mining need have nothing to do with it. So your “rural American families” dependant on mining get jack shit out of the deal except priced out of their own land when it becomes a resort area OR plenty of pollution when it becomes a gas field, you fucking liar.

    Guys like Montana Gov. Schwietzer need to hit hard on this crap, getting the ranchers and hunters fired up on this.

  19. 19.

    Sine.Qua.Non

    Bob: When you talk about the national trust, the value may not be evident to a man of business.

    You are right on target there. Plus, they wouldn’t allow the agencies to do a natural value assessment -they flat out refused their request. Some shenanighans going on with that and it is deceitful as well.

    Ken: I do not want to seem too hostile, but the misinformation on public lands is incredible and the well financed campaigns of elitists like the Sierra Club are meant to keep it that way.

    The Sierra Club is the least elitist organization of the bunch – so you are flat out wrong there as well as indicating that desert is problematic as a natural area for preservation. It is a climate of it’s own. Are you aware that there are 3-levels of desert? That in some deserts wild orchids grow, some species of animal live here which is their only habitat? It is disingenuous to say that all land is special, and I don’t, but these areas have been targeted for their oil and mineral resources specifically as a land grab by California developers and the mining/oil/gas industries. Yeah, you can sure trust Palumbo(a developer). With his name attached, you can bet its a bad deal for everyone and benefits just who he wants it to.

  20. 20.

    Sine.Qua.Non

    Republicans’ Wild Western Land Grab It would allow the Interior Department to sell tens of millions of acres of public lands in the American West — including more than 2 million acres inside or within a few miles of national parks, wildlife refuges, and wilderness areas — to international mining companies, oil and gas prospectors, real-estate developers, and, well, anyone else who’s interested. The stated aim is to generate an estimated $158 million in revenue over the next five years to help curb the monstrous federal deficit.

    “To our knowledge, it represents the largest land giveaway in modern American history,” said Horwitt. Rep. Nick J. Rahall, D-W.Va., ranking member of the House Resources Committee, called Pombo’s proposal “a raid on America’s public lands and our natural resources heritage of almost unparalleled proportions.”

    in 1994, Congress instituted a moratorium on such sales, saying prospectors could no longer file new patents that would give them outright ownership of federal lands; rather, they now pay nominal annual fees for the rights to extract minerals, but the lands stay in public hands and therefore extraction projects are subject to environmental reviews.

    Under Rahall’s leadership, a bipartisan coalition of representatives has been working to draft a total overhaul of the archaic mining statute that would not only make permanent the moratorium on new patents, but also force mining companies to pay royalties to the feds — just as oil and gas firms and other extractive industries do.

    Pombo’s provision, by contrast, would rehabilitate the right to buy land outright, allowing private parties to acquire federal lands for as little as $1,000 an acre or for the “surface value” of the property, whichever is greater. Prices wouldn’t factor in the value of the minerals below the surface, nor would buyers have to pay royalties to the government on the resources they extract. If Pombo were serious about generating revenue for the treasury, “the provision would at the very least impose a royalty,” said Alberswerth. “Clearly this has nothing to do with addressing the ballooning federal deficit — that’s just a pretext to ram this mining-industry agenda through Congress.”

    In October, Rahall introduced the Federal Mineral Development and Land Protection Equity Act of 2005, which proposes an 8 percent royalty on mineral production from mining claims. “That alone would raise $350 million in five years,” Alberswerth said — more than twice what Pombo expects to generate in the same time period with his plan. (Oil and coal producers, by comparison, are required to pay royalties of up to 12.5 percent or more when extracting from public lands.)

    Critics are even more aghast that Pombo’s mining-reform proposal would not require buyers to prove that mineral resources exist beneath the property they want to purchase, nor that they use the land for mining.

    “As written, purchasing the land need only facilitate ‘sustainable economic development,'” Rahall said on the House floor earlier this month. “Since the term is not defined, ‘sustainable economic development’ could include condominium construction, ski resorts, gaming casinos, name it.” And since the land would be privately owned and no longer under federal jurisdiction, it would be immune to environmental reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act or public input on development plans.

    The [Environmental Working Group] study’s more striking findings include the vulnerability of national parks and wilderness areas. As the Pombo provision applies to current and past mining claims alike, it would encompass some claims that have yet to be acted upon that are older than particular national parks or protected areas in which they’re located.

    “In national parks alone, there are more than 650 unpatented mining claims that would be subject to sale for [as little as] $1,000 per acre if these provisions become law,” said Rahall. An estimated 60 acres within California’s Joshua Tree National Park could potentially be offered for sale, as could roughly 720 acres within Death Valley National Park, according to Alberswerth. Two hundred acres within five miles of Grand Canyon National Park could also be on the chopping block, say enviros. And in Alaska’s Tongass National Forest, warns Rahall, more than 60,000 acres of mining claims could be slated for development under Pombo’s provision.

    Still up writing and on a little break and found this article on Pombo’s stunt. Sorry for the length, but its good detailed data.

  21. 21.

    Steve S

    But supporters of the bill, including Representative Jim Gibbons, Republican of Nevada, argue that critics like Mr. Leshy are missing the point of the legislation, and that allowing more mine-claim lands to be purchased would be an economic boon to rural communities that often struggle in the boom and bust cycle of mining. “Not only is this rhetoric false, it is an affront to the rural American families whose livelihoods depend on sustained economic development…”

    There was an article recently in the Minneapolis paper about development up north of Duluth.

    The people from the cities have been buying summer cabins up there at a tremendous pace. This has driven up the land values.(Most of these cabins are more expensive than my primary home) A lot of land has been bought up to build big resorts.

    It’s a tremendous economic boom.

    The problem is, the people who have lived there for generations, don’t have huge income and they’re being pushed out because they can’t afford just the taxes on their land.

  22. 22.

    BIRDZILLA

    Screw the SIERRA CLUB it just wants to lock up this country into the wildlands idea why dont the SIERRA CLUB just keep its mouths shut and quit whinning and why dont they climb out of their trees and plant them instead

  23. 23.

    Sine.Qua.Non

    You have a strangely dinosaur-age name – perhaps that is where your uninformed silliness resides, with B-movie radioactive godzilla monsters. (Is this????, nah,… is it, Doug?)

  24. 24.

    Don

    As a general rule, I would support selling federal land that we have determined has no military or other use, and we have decided that we do not wish to spend the resources to make the land into a park.

    I think there’s some value in just plain undisturbed land, not just for the critters and the oxygen-creating plants but for all of us. One of the things I like best about living in Virginia (even near-DC VA) rather than my native Miami is how much green and open land there is. I wouldn’t let people go hungry rather than farm on it but I think writing it off as 0 value just because it’s “unused” is a bit short.

    How about that crappy swampland around New Orleans? Worthless swamps. What harm to fill in and pave over?

    A lot of us in Florida over the last fifty years thought that was good reasoning for the Everglades. Turns out nature spent thousands of years shaping it a certain way for a purpose, some of which is important to us for things like water and weather severity.

Comments are closed.