Millions of acres of public lands at risk. Phyllis Mains
House Narrowly Passes Nightmare Budget
Earthjustice | Press Release
Friday 18 November 2005
Unacceptable threats to the environment remain.
Washington DC - Early this morning, the US House of Representatives
narrowly passed its budget reconciliation bill by a vote of 217 to 215.
Fourteen Republicans joined all voting Democrats and one Independent in
opposing the bill. This industry giveaway contains numerous attacks on
the environment, particularly on our most special public lands.
"This budget is a loss for the American people," said Marty Hayden,
legislative director for Earthjustice. "While the House version does not
include threats to drill for oil along our coasts and in the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge as earlier versions did, this budget would still
cause serious harm to our public lands."
The House passed budget includes language seeking to:
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 important Farm Bill programs that help farmers and ranchers protect
and enhance natural resources on their land. The Conservation Security
Program, which rewards good conservation stewardship, would be cut by
$504 million over five years. 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.
Leadership was unable to muster enough votes for the flawed bill one
week ago, despite stripping language that would have authorized oil
drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and off America's coasts.
"Since only minor changes have been made to the budget proposal, it
is obvious that a lot of arm twisting must have occurred since then,"
said Sarah Wilhoite, legislative associate for Earthjustice. "Congress
recognized that special places like the Arctic Refuge need protection.
However, it is unfortunate they did not apply that standard of protection
to our other sensitive public lands."
Go to Original
What's Yours Is Mine
By Amanda Griscom Little
Grist Magazine
Thursday 17 November 2005
Mining-law revamp could put millions of public acres up for sale.
Greens beamed and GOP leaders bristled last week after language
paving the way for oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
and on the Outer Continental Shelf was stricken from the House budget
reconciliation bill. But many Democrats and enviros are now sounding the
alarm over another provision in the bill, one that's stirred up far less
of a public ruckus but is "every bit as bad as drilling in the Arctic,"
said Dusty Horwitt, senior policy analyst for the Environmental Working
Group.
The brainchild of Rep. Richard Pombo (R-CA), chair of the House
Resources Committee, and Rep. Jim Gibbons (R-NV), this provision calls
for a historic shift in American mining law, which has remained largely
unchanged since the passage of the 1872 Mining Act. Enviros and fiscal
conservatives in both major parties have been calling for mining reform
for years, but Pombo's proposal isn't quite what they had in mind.
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."
Pombo's office did not respond to Muckraker's requests for comment,
nor did the California rep release any public statements on the
provision, which was slipped into the budget bill three weeks ago - much
to the surprise of enviros. According to The Washington Post, Pombo
claimed his proposal would reduce the deficit and encourage private
ownership. "In some states primarily owned by the federal government,
it's important that more of that land become private property," he told
the Post. "These environmental groups want the federal government to own
everything."
Chagrins and Minerals
Up until a decade ago, the General Mining Law of 1872, signed into
law by Ulysses S. Grant, allowed private companies to "patent" (i.e.,
purchase) federal land with proven mineral resources for between $2.50
and $5 an acre - 19th-century prices that industry has used all of its
lobbying might to hang on to. Then, 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.
"The 1994 moratorium has always been seen as an extremely inadequate
placeholder solution," said Dave Alberswerth, senior policy adviser at
The Wilderness Society.
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.
A Crock in the Park
Last week, the Environmental Working Group released a study that
shows, state-by-state, the potential impact of the legislation on Western
lands (though it definitely errs on the high side with estimates of acres
that could be affected). The 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.
Dozens of environmental groups have signed a letter [PDF] opposing
the bill. Moderate Republican House members including Thomas Davis III
(VA) and Christopher Shays (CT) have already voiced concern, and there's
been vehement opposition from Senate Democrats including Dianne Feinstein
(CA) and Max Baucus (MT). (While a budget resolution already passed by
the Senate included a provision to allow drilling in the Arctic Refuge,
it did not include any mining language.)
In a letter to Pombo, Feinstein argued, "This provision could allow
claimants to carve out numerous private enclaves within our public lands,
without even proving that mining deposits lie beneath them ... it appears
that potentially millions of acres of national forests and BLM lands
would now be required to be put up for sale by the interior secretary
merely because they contained 'mineral deposits.'"
If the provision were introduced as a standalone bill, Alberswerth
thinks it would have a dewdrop's chance in hell of passing, as it would
stir up considerable opposition from a number of Republican fiscal
conservatives in addition to many Democrats.
But as part of a huge budget reconciliation bill, it may stand a
better chance. The House Rules Committee has refused to remove the
provision from the bill, or allow an amendment that would strike it
during the floor debate, according to Alberswerth. "Basically we're
looking at an up or down vote" on the whole budget package, he said.
"This bill is so huge and controversial that this provision has gotten
lost in the heap of concerns." Though virtually all Democrats are
expected to vote against the bill, it's unlikely that any moderate
Republicans would cast a nay vote in protest of this provision alone, he
said.
A House vote on the budget bill is expected as soon as tomorrow. If
it passes, opponents of the mining provision will hope that it's stripped
out during conference-committee negotiations between the House and
Senate. As there's nothing in the Senate version that even resembles this
language, that could be a good bet. But as Congress gets restless to wrap
up its work and break for the holidays, there's no telling what could
happen.
Amanda Griscom Little writes Grist's Muckraker column on
environmental politics and policy and interviews green luminaries for the
magazine. Her articles on energy and the environment have also appeared
in publications ranging from Rolling Stone to The New York Times
Magazine.
-------
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To view the Sierra Club List Terms & Conditions, see:
http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/terms.asp