By Jim Scarantino
This is a follow-up to Scarantino’s July 3 column.
Drop the rhetoric. Forget the generalities. Lose the political slogans. What does U.S. Rep. Steve Pearce’s bill for
Pearce’s bill does “release” all the wilderness study areas in
Here is what Pearce’s bill says in section 101(c), in its own terms, no gloss, no spin:
“[A]ll Federal land with the special preservation areas, and any land and interests in land acquired for the special preservation area by the United States after the date of enactment of this Act are withdrawn from — (1) all forms of entry appropriation or disposal under public land laws; (2) location, entry, and patent under the mining laws; and (3) operation of the mineral leasing, mineral materials and geothermal laws.”
Pearce’s bill says the same thing about the rangeland preservation areas. What does this mean?
• No sales or disposals, ever, for the 300,000-plus acres in the special preservation and rangeland preservation areas.
• No mining claims, ever, in those areas.
• No mineral extraction activities, ever, in those areas.
To those people who became hysterical about Pearce’s bill, I ask: Why would you object to legislation that would permanently protect over 300,000 acres of
As for motor-vehicle use
As for motor vehicle use, what would Pearce’s bill do? Here’s what it says in section 202(b)(2):
Motor vehicle use will be allowed: “(A) on roads and trails designated for vehicular use under the management plans; and (B) as determined by the Secretary [of the Interior] for (i) administrative purposes; (ii) homeland security or law enforcement; (iii) construction, maintenance, operation, and management of flood control or water conservation systems by any Federal, State or local government entity; (iv) construction, maintenance, and operation of rangeland improvements authorized by the Secretary; or (v) emergency response.”
What’s wrong with that? Pearce’s bill prohibits off-road vehicles from tearing up the country. They have to stay on designated roads and trails. Rescue teams can drive off-road. But why would anyone want to make it harder for rescue teams to reach an injured child or save dehydrated immigrants lost in the desert? By the same token, why would anyone want to make it harder for law enforcement and homeland security to do their jobs by preventing them from driving off-road when needed?
Opponents of Pearce’s bill need to explain why they want to handcuff flood-control and water-conservation authorities by prohibiting them from using motorized vehicles or mechanical equipment in the 300,000 acres surrounding
Wilderness advocates say they don’t want to make life more difficult for ranchers. Then why would they object to ranchers using motorized vehicles as needed to construct, maintain and operate rangeland improvements?
Land-disposal provision improves the process
The part of Pearce’s bill that has acted like a lightning rod for the opposition concerns land disposal for community development. Forget the chest thumping. What does Pearce’s bill actually say?
Under Section 401 this land is already “identified for disposal through the resource management planning process of the Bureau of Land Management.” The land covers 60,000 acres that has been slated for many years for eventual sale or other disposal under the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA). The BLM has been selling that land to meet growth in
According to Bill Childress of the Las Cruces BLM office, in the last four years a little under 400 acres of BLM land in
Pearce’s bill would restrict how and when the BLM sells land and direct 20 percent of the proceeds to local governments.
Under section 401(f) Pearce’s bill prohibits any of these 60,000 acres of disposal lands from being used for mining.
Under section 402(a)(1) Pearce would direct 10 percent of BLM land-sale proceeds to
The remainder of BLM land sale proceeds, under section 402(a)(3), would be set aside for the acquisition of “environmentally sensitive” lands in New Mexico, development of parks, trails and natural areas and habitat protection in Doña Any County, rangeland improvements, or administrative costs associated with land sales such as surveys.
Instead of promoting runaway growth, Pearce’s bill in section 401(e) prohibits disposal of any BLM land until local governments have certified that all qualified bidders have agreed to comply with applicable zoning ordinances and master plans. No such requirement is in place now.
Lastly, Pearce establishes a public board and a public-comment procedure to advise the BLM in prioritizing land disposal and make recommendations on how it should be done. Currently, the BLM sells land without any such procedures.
So what’s not to like about Pearce’s bill? He’s found a way to protect
Scarantino has been recognized as one of the country’s best political columnists by the American Association of Alternative Newsweeklies. His work has been published in more than 50 newspapers. You can contact him at jrscarantino@yahoo.com.