{"id":3462,"date":"2008-07-16T11:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-07-16T17:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.nmpolitics.net\/index\/2008\/07\/pearces-conservation-bill-what%e2%80%99s-not-to-like-part-2\/"},"modified":"2008-07-16T11:00:00","modified_gmt":"2008-07-16T17:00:00","slug":"pearces-conservation-bill-what%e2%80%99s-not-to-like-part-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/2008\/07\/pearces-conservation-bill-what%e2%80%99s-not-to-like-part-2\/","title":{"rendered":"Pearce’s conservation bill: What\u2019s not to like? (Part 2)"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

By Jim Scarantino<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

This is a follow-up to Scarantino\u2019s July 3 column<\/a>.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

Drop the rhetoric. Forget the generalities. Lose the political slogans. What does U.S. Rep. Steve Pearce\u2019s<\/a> bill for Do\u00f1a<\/st1:placename> Ana<\/st1:placename> County<\/st1:placename><\/st1:place>, H.R. 6300<\/a>, actually propose?<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

Pearce\u2019s bill does \u201crelease\u201d all the wilderness study areas in Do\u00f1a<\/st1:placename> Ana<\/st1:placename> County<\/st1:placename><\/st1:place>. That technical term does not mean any lands currently given wilderness-study status will be sold. It means he would move them into other categories of protection called \u201cspecial preservation\u201d and \u201crangeland preservation\u201d areas. Does that really make any difference on the ground? Why should anyone object to permanently protecting over 300,000 acres of Do\u00f1a<\/st1:placename> Ana<\/st1:placename> County<\/st1:placename><\/st1:place> in the manner proposed in Pearce\u2019s legislation?<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

Here is what Pearce\u2019s bill says in section 101(c), in its own terms, no gloss, no spin:<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

\u201c[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in land acquired for the special preservation area by the United States after the date of enactment of this Act are withdrawn from — (1) all forms of entry appropriation or disposal under public land laws; (2) location, entry, and patent under the mining laws; and (3) operation of the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.\u201d<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

Pearce\u2019s bill says the same thing about the rangeland preservation areas. What does this mean?<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

\u2022 No sales or disposals, ever, for the 300,000-plus acres in the special preservation and rangeland preservation areas.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

\u2022 No mining claims, ever, in those areas.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

\u2022 No mineral extraction activities, ever, in those areas.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

To those people who became hysterical about Pearce\u2019s bill, I ask: Why would you object to legislation that would permanently protect over 300,000 acres of Do\u00f1a<\/st1:placename> Ana<\/st1:placename> County<\/st1:placename><\/st1:place> from sales and mineral extraction? To ask the question is to answer it. There are no grounds for objection.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

As for motor-vehicle use<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

As for motor vehicle use, what would Pearce\u2019s bill do? Here\u2019s what it says in section 202(b)(2):<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

Motor vehicle use will be allowed: \u201c(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.\u201d<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

What\u2019s wrong with that? Pearce\u2019s 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?<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

Opponents of Pearce\u2019s 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 Las Cruces<\/st1:place><\/st1:city>.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

Wilderness advocates say they don\u2019t 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?<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

Land-disposal provision improves the process<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

The part of Pearce\u2019s bill that has acted like a lightning rod for the opposition concerns land disposal for community development. Forget the chest thumping. What does Pearce\u2019s bill actually say?<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

Under Section 401 this land is already \u201cidentified for disposal through the resource management planning process of the Bureau of Land Management.\u201d 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 Do\u00f1a<\/st1:placename> Ana<\/st1:placename> County<\/st1:placename><\/st1:place> as the need arises before Pearce ever introduced his bill. Without Pearce\u2019s bill, the BLM will go on selling land as it sees fit, for whatever purpose its wants.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

According to Bill Childress of the Las Cruces BLM office, in the last four years a little under 400 acres of BLM land in Do\u00f1a<\/st1:placename> Ana<\/st1:placename> County<\/st1:placename><\/st1:place> has been sold through the competitive bidding process. Those acres sold for approximately $3 million. All of that money went to the federal government. Not a penny was split with local governments.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

Pearce\u2019s bill would restrict how and when the BLM sells land and direct 20 percent of the proceeds to local governments.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

Under section 401(f) Pearce\u2019s bill prohibits any of these 60,000 acres of disposal lands from being used for mining.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

Under section 402(a)(1) Pearce would direct 10 percent of BLM land-sale proceeds to Do\u00f1a<\/st1:placename> Ana<\/st1:placename> County<\/st1:placename><\/st1:place> for planning, fire protection, law enforcement, public safety, transportation, or the development of parks, trails or open space. Pearce would direct 10 percent of BLM land-sale proceeds to communities in Do\u00f1a<\/st1:placename> Ana<\/st1:placename> County<\/st1:placename><\/st1:place> for similar purposes.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

The remainder of BLM land sale proceeds, under section 402(a)(3), would be set aside for the acquisition of \u201cenvironmentally sensitive\u201d lands in New Mexico, development of parks, trails and natural areas and habitat protection in <\/span>Do\u00f1a Any County, rangeland improvements, or administrative costs associated with land sales such as surveys.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

Instead of promoting runaway growth, Pearce\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

So what\u2019s not to like about Pearce\u2019s bill? He\u2019s found a way to protect Do\u00f1a<\/st1:placename> Ana<\/st1:placename> County<\/st1:placename><\/st1:place>\u2019s open spaces while accommodating the needs of law enforcement, water authorities and agriculture. He has imposed restrictions on the BLM\u2019s land-disposal process that give local governments funds for environmental projects and prohibit sales that violate local growth controls. Instead of spewing venom, environmentalists should be sitting down to try to work with him.<\/p>\n

<\/span> <\/span> <\/span> <\/span><\/p>\n

Scarantino<\/a> has been recognized as one of the country\u2019s best political columnists by the American Association of Alternative Newsweeklies<\/a>. His work has been published in more than 50 newspapers. You can contact him at jrscarantino@yahoo.com<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Jim Scarantino This is a follow-up to Scarantino\u2019s July 3 column. Drop the rhetoric. Forget the generalities. Lose the political slogans. What does U.S. Rep. Steve Pearce\u2019s bill for Do\u00f1a Ana County, H.R. 6300, actually propose? Pearce\u2019s bill does \u201crelease\u201d all the wilderness study areas in Do\u00f1a Ana County. That technical term does not […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[90],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3462","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-scarantino-columns"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3462","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3462"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3462\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3462"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3462"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3462"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}