Republicans have long salivated at the thought of transferring federally owned land, such as our national forests, wildernesses, and wildlife refuges, to the states which could then sell it off for economic exploitation by industry. The land enjoys collective ownership now and one can camp, hunt or just daydream on this acreage without seeing an oil derrick in the distance as Republicans would like.
This year’s Republican platform, while taking a hard turn to the right on social issues, is consistent in its long-held desire to transfer federal lands to state control. The language of the platform reads:
“Congress should reconsider whether parts of the federal government’s enormous landholdings and control of water in the West could be better used for ranching, mining or forestry through private ownership.
“Timber is a renewable natural resource, which provides jobs to thousands of Americans. All efforts should be made to make federal lands managed by the U.S. Forest Service available for harvesting. The enduring truth is that people best protect what they own.”
Such a measure, diametrically opposed to the public interest as it is, is backed by the usual suspects on the right such as the American Legislative Exchange Council or ALEC, an industry front group which writes legislation often adopted word for word by conservative state legislatures, and Americans For Prosperity, founded by the Koch brothers.
Their argument is guised in terms of state’s rights, but as state’s rights was used as an imprimatur for decades to deny blacks their full rights in the south now it is again being used contrary to the public interest in an effort to deny public access to our pristine parks and forests and to destroy habitats for animals.
“Tea party favorite, Ted Cruz earlier introduced a bill to cap federal land ownership and transfer excess land to state taxpayers. The taxpayers would then have the right to pass the land to frackers, loggers, drillers or any other private interest. Given the cost of maintaining the lands, many predicted that outcome.”
Rand Paul, on a presidential campaign swing in the West, knocked federal ownership of land telling the AP: “I think almost all land use issues and animal issues, endangered species issues, ought to be handled at the state level.” He then met with rogue rancher, Cliven Bundy, after Bundy’s standoff with federal marshals over his refusal to pay grazing fees built up over decades of grazing his cattle on federal land. Bundy then announced that he and the senator were “in tune with one another.”
About 640 million acres of federal public lands located particularly in Western states are owned by the government, which is greater than the landmass of Texas, California, Florida and New York combined. ”According to the Congressional Research Service, the U.S. government owns nearly half the land in the 11 coterminous western states, as well as more than 60 percent of Alaska. But in the rest of the country, only 4 percent of the land is federally held.”
In the Midwest much of the federal land was transferred to farmers through homesteading and land grants. According to the New York Times: “The many mountainous, arid and difficult-to-reach tracts of land in the West simply weren’t attractive to farmers.” Much of the federally owned land in the West is remote and unpopulated, far from even the most distant suburbs.
However, a federal transfer of land to the state does not usually survive the first state budget crisis. For example, according to Amanda Marcotte writing in Salon magazine:
“Idaho has sold or traded 41 percent of the land it was granted at statehood,” Brooks continued. “Nevada has sold off 99 percent of its original state land holdings. In total, Western states have sold 31 million acres of state lands that were given to them at statehood, an area roughly equivalent in size to the state of Louisiana.”
“The shadiness extends right down to the methods Republicans are using to try to sneak these lands away from their rightful owners, the American people. The original text of PROMESA, a bill to help Puerto Rico restructure its debt and prevent economic collapse, had a provision that would transfer the gorgeous Vieques National Wildlife Refuge to Puerto Rico’s ownership, with a clear eye toward forcing the commonwealth to sell this land off to corporate interests.”
Her argument continues: “But really, the main reason to oppose these efforts isn’t about money at all, but about living in a country that puts a value on things more enriching and permanent than quarterly profit margins.
As is so often the case, the Republicans are on the wrong side of this issue. They oppose the public good and may not even recognize the concept instead believing solely and soullessly in self-interest. Once these lands are gone and “Do Not Trespass” signs are mounted across them they are lost forever. While not a reflective crowd, Republicans should ask themselves if the pursuit of profit justifies any and all political goals?