natural resources

UnderMining Prosperity

by Richard Morrison on July 3, 2009 · 1 comment

in Environment, Natural Resources, Video, Zeitgeist

[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p691OaOKUE8 285 234]

Land Grab Bill: Senators Check Principles at the Door

by Myron Ebell on January 17, 2009 · 1 comment

in Energy, Environment, Politics as Usual

I have heard several Republican congressional leaders say that the party has learned its lesson from their disastrous losses in the past two elections. From now on, it’s back to being the party of limited government, fiscal discipline, lower taxes, and against pork barrel spending.

Sounds good, but Senate Republicans have blown their first opportunity to demonstrate that they mean what they say. The first bill that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) brought to a vote in the 111th Congress is the omnibus land grab bill that was blocked in the waning days of the last Congress by Senator Tom Coburn (R-Okla.). It was re-introduced by Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), Chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, as S. 22. It contains around 160 titles. Lots of new National Parks, Wilderness Areas, Wild and Scenic Rivers, National Trails, and National Heritage Areas. Plus making official a whole new designation of public land lockups for the Bureau of Land Management called Areas of Critical Environmental Concern. And withdrawing 1.2 million acres from the Bridger-Teton National Forest in Wyoming from future oil and gas production–an area with high gas potential.

The Senate voted on Thursday 73 to 21 to pass this monstrosity. Twenty-one Republicans voted against it, but nineteen Republicans (and all 54 Democrats who voted) voted for it. This first vote suggests that it’s going to be business as usual for many Republican Senators in the 111th Congress. Talk about shrinking government and reducing federal spending. Talk about increasing domestic energy production. Talk about stopping pork barrel spending. And then vote the other way.

The twenty-one Senators who voted against S. 22 were:
Brownback (Ks.), Burr (NC), Chambliss (Ga.), Coburn (Okla.), Cornyn (Tex.), DeMint (SC), Ensign (Nev.), Graham (NC), Grassley (Ia.), Hutchison (Tex.), Inhofe (Okla.), Isakson (Ga.), Johanns (Neb.), Kyl (Az.), McCain (Az.), McConnell (Ky.), Roberts (Ks.), Sessions (Ala.), Shelby (Ala.), Thune (SD), and Vitter (La.). They should be congratulated.

If you hear any of the nineteen Republicans who voted for the land grab bill talk about getting back to the basic conservative principles of less government, lower spending, and protecting property rights, have a good laugh.

S. 22 now moves to the House of Representatives.

Democrats Poised for Yet Another Land Grab

by Richard Morrison on January 9, 2009

in Energy

In these troubled times, Congress’ plate is piled high with vital legislative priorities. Naturally, upon getting to work this week, the Senate is zeroing in on the most important of all: taking millions of acres of land that may yield a vast amount of natural gas and other mineral resources and locking them away from development forever. Take that, energy crisis!

Our very own Myron Ebell had something to say about this move in a press release today:

The Bingaman-Reid bill is full of bad provisions, but the worst are the ones that would prohibit oil and natural gas production on more than a million acres of federal land. Tens of millions of acres of federal lands in the West have already been withdrawn from mineral and energy production. The new Congress should be opening some of these areas, which would help increase domestic energy production and lower prices. Instead, faced with declining natural gas production and potential shortages in the near future, the first bill that Majority Leader Harry Reid wants the Senate to consider would take 1.2 million acres in Wyoming with high natural gas potential out of production.

I should also point out that property rights advocates like the Competitive Enterprise Institute have long opposed expanding federal land ownership, in part because of the federal government’s poor track record in managing the lands it already controls. Management strategies adopted by the U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, and National Park Service have led to destructive wildfires, habitat loss, and the spread of pests and disease in large swaths of forest and range land throughout the Western United States. Over one hundred non-profit groups last November sent a letter to the Senate raising concerns about an earlier incarnation of the current legislation.

ADDENDUM: CEI adjunct fellow Bob Nelson has been writing about the deficiencies of federal land management for quite some time – his Forbes column from 2000 is an excellent introduction to the topic. In depth researchers will want to get a hold of a copy of his book, A Burning Issue: A Case for Abolishing the U.S. Forest Service (Rowman & Littlefield).