House Budget Reconciliation Bill Approves Private Purchase of Federal Land

[steve1 5]

This isn't a new idea. I heard several years ago that the government was thinking of selling off public lands to pay off the national debt.

It wouldn't surprise me if the current administration comes up with a similiar crazy notion to do the same thing. I just hope our lawmakers are smart enough to vote against it. It's surprising to me how many people think this is a great idea....Steve1

[davedlg 0]

Quote

This isn't a new idea. I heard several years ago that the government was thinking of selling off public lands to pay off the national debt.

It wouldn't surprise me if the current administration comes up with a similiar crazy notion to do the same thing. I just hope our lawmakers are smart enough to vote against it. It's surprising to me how many people think this is a great idea....Steve1

Bingo. Unfortunatly our lawmakers have already voted for it. The house passed these provisions by a two vote margin. Since it is part of the budget bill, it was completely overshadowed by "bigger issues." It never would have made it through otherwise. Now it is in the hands of the house-senate confrence commitee. They have the final say as to whether it makes it into law. It will not be voted on again.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

It's surprising to me how many people think this is a great idea....

I know exactly zero people who think this is a great idea. I respect those that have thought on the tradeoffs and decided this is not a good idea (not only would corporations buy the land and use it up, but also foreign countries as well - we shouldn't sell of the country to either considering we are still relatively strong in both resources and economy.) I understand those that have the knee jerk reaction against it also, just respect them less. I really wouldn't understand anyone for it, though.

This is likely just another PR attempt where one or two congressduds propose this, then nearly everybody votes against it(including those that proposed it in the first place) and tells their constituents that they voted against it and they score brownie points. Another do nothing bill, to give incumbents more ammo. Didn't we just go through this on another bill a week ago about bringing everyone home immediately from Iraq?

Now our reps can vote against it and we can all hoist them onto our shoulders as our public land heros.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

The house passed these provisions by a two vote margin. Since it is part of the budget bill, it was completely overshadowed by "bigger issues." It never would have made it through otherwise. Now it is in the hands of the house-senate confrence commitee. They have the final say as to whether it makes it into law. It will not be voted on again.

crap

what does that mean? It's now part of a bill to be voted on? or is it passed? I can't stand how they bundle up stuff.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[davedlg 0]

Quote

what does that mean? It's now part of a bill to be voted on? or is it passed? I can't stand how they bundle up stuff.

The house passed their budget bill and the senate passed their own bill. Both the house and senate will appoint a confrence comittee to hammer out the details of the final budget bill. If I understand correctly, whatever they hammer out becomes law. We are only one step away from this happening.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

what does that mean? It's now part of a bill to be voted on? or is it passed? I can't stand how they bundle up stuff.

The house passed their budget bill and the senate passed their own bill. Both the house and senate will appoint a confrence comittee to hammer out the details of the final budget bill. If I understand correctly, whatever they hammer out becomes law. We are only one step away from this happening.

well, crap - anyone want a line item veto now? still, good odds on this not surviving the final draft? It could really be used as political ammo if they let it through....

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[lawrocket 3]

A couple of thoughts:

First, this reinstates activity that was stopped back in 1994. It's simply going back to what was done before.

I'm wondering whether this will open the door to mining coal in the Grand Staircase-Escalante National
Monument in Utah. If anyone remembers, back in 1996 - before the elections - Clinton signed and executive order turning 1.7 million acres of middle-of-nowhere Utah into the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. It so happened that a mining company was about to break ground on a coal mine that would have produced around 3 million tons of probably the cleanest-burning and lowest sulphur coal on earth. There was probably about 11 billion tons of recoverable coal there.

Now, the only other place in the world with similarly clean coal that can be mined is in Indonesia - where it is mined by strip mining.

So, the issue here is, "Why not open up some of this land to mining?"

It may be better for the environment in the long run.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[davedlg 0]

I am not against opening up some of the land to responsible mining. However, this goes further then simply changing the 1994 law. Prior to 1994, when a mining company patented a piece of land, they did not purchase the land from the federal government, they simply got the rights to mine the land. This law allows for the purchase of the land from the government - big difference there. Once a company (or an indivdual) owns a piece of land, they can do with it what they please - even if they want to build condos, a summer home, or a walmart. Previouslly, the land would remain the property of the federal government and there were restrictions on what the mining company could do with the land.

[billvon 3,120]

>It may be better for the environment in the long run.

As coal is the dirtiest fuel we have, making coal cheaper (by increasing availability/supply) will have a direct negative impact on the environment. There is nothing dirtier than a working coal fired power plant.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>It may be better for the environment in the long run.

As coal is the dirtiest fuel we have, making coal cheaper (by increasing availability/supply) will have a direct negative impact on the environment. There is nothing dirtier than a working coal fired power plant.

So are you saying we have poorer controls on coal consumption than Indonesia?

I like Dave's point - private companies contracting the land from the government under defined controls is much different than selling the land off. If he's correct in this, this particular part of the budget bill goes too far.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 3,120]

>So are you saying we have poorer controls on coal consumption than Indonesia?

We have NO controls on coal consumption. We do have controls on emissions from power plants, but not on total consumption. (Which I would assume you agree with.)

>I like Dave's point - private companies contracting the land from the
> government under defined controls is much different than selling
> the land off.

I agree with this as well. Provided the land management plan is adhered to, watersheds protected, tailings contained etc then I'd agree to allowing private companies to mine government land.

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

I like Dave's point - private companies contracting the land from the government under defined controls is much different than selling the land off. If he's correct in this, this particular part of the budget bill goes too far.

Bingo. That is exactly what we said earlier.. THAT is the difference I was talking about. I would be fine with leasing.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[lawrocket 3]

Okay. I see the difference now. Yes, then, this is an interesting development.

Now, should all of these federal be banned from private ownership forever? Or, should a new type of Homestead Act be allowed?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

I like Dave's point - private companies contracting the land from the government under defined controls is much different than selling the land off. If he's correct in this, this particular part of the budget bill goes too far.

Bingo. That is exactly what we said earlier.. THAT is the difference I was talking about. I would be fine with leasing.

Do the feds collect any royalties for the extraction of minerals on leased land?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[davedlg 0]

Quote

Do the feds collect any royalties for the extraction of minerals on leased land?

Yes. IIRC Fairly substantial ones .

[davedlg 0]

Good news.

The mining law provisions were dropped from the budget bill today
http://www.denverpost.com/nationworld/ci_3306642

Thanks to everyone who helped oppose it.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

The mining law provisions were dropped from the budget bill today Thanks to everyone who helped oppose it.

Nuts, it was a set up all along. Let's see how it's used in the next couple rounds of campaigns.

"This is likely just another PR attempt where one or two congressduds propose this, then nearly everybody votes against it(including those that proposed it in the first place) and tells their constituents that they voted against it and they score brownie points. Another do nothing bill, to give incumbents more ammo. Didn't we just go through this on another bill a week ago about bringing everyone home immediately from Iraq? ?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[brierebecca 0]

Quote

This provision litterally allows for the private purchase of federal lands at $1000/acre for "mining purposes".

I think you're talking about an amendment to the Mining Act of 1920, which updated another Mining Act from the 19th century. The 1920 Mining Act disallowed the patenting of federal lands for mining purposes. (I just took the final for my Natural Resources class last wednesday).

Fortunately, the Mining Act of 1920 substantially limited the substances that could feasibly be claimed in patenting tracts of land, because subsequent court decisions on the subject have made it really hard to gain any pro possessio rights (this is the right to entry before the patent is perfected) to any land that contains minerals that are not distinctly valuable.

Also, these "mining purposes" are harder to satisfy than you may think. Court cases have established this. Also, BLM lands are subject to approval by the governing agency, and the Secretary of the Interior can flatly deny these kinds of claims.

I wish the Secretary of Agriculture had the same power over National Forests and other lands covered by the Organic Act, but he doesn't. The agency can, however, limit such activites in their scope so as to limit the amount of land that can be leased or patented. They can also make them subject to environmental permits.

I guess my point is that I share your concern, but the courts have limited these claims to mining purposes only, so its much harder for developers to take advantage of the Mining Act anyway. Interestingly, the $1000 an acre price on the land is up from the 5.00 an acre that it used to be.

Brie

"Ive seen you hump air, hump the floor of the plane, and hump legs. You now have a new nickname: "Black Humper of Death"--yardhippie