The Different Kinds of “Privatizing” Public (Federal) Lands and CBD’s Most Wanted List

From Center for Biological Diversity “Public Lands Enemies”

Matthew and I have been having an interesting discussion here about privatizing public lands and the role of various political actors, which I thought I would move to a separate post. It all started as “what’s with Wyoming and Utah ” and originally started with a comment by Jon. I appreciate Matthew’s look at history and I bet there are historic reasons that Utah is the way it is, just like any other state.

First I would like to separate the idea of privatization as any private entity leasing federal land- here is an example in the Summit Daily News by a writer named Jonathan Thompson, a contributing editor to the High Country News.

Zinke has repeatedly expressed his opposition to wholesale federal land transfers, but his enthusiasm for leasing adds up to the same thing. The interior secretary is running a de facto privatization scheme.

(my bold) It may seem ironic that the Summit Daily News ran this, given that the largest economic engines in Summit County are ski areas located on leased Forest Service land. Oh well. I think it is intentional, and not very accurate, to conflate selling federal land to “letting people do things on federal land and getting money for it.”

If we talk about “real” privatization, there have been various efforts by Congressfolk to that have been characterized by some as privatization. Not having looked into those bills I don’t know the details.

I don’t pay a lot of attention because there isn’t enough support to do it, so it is just political theater. (I’d be interested in posts as to what the bills contain .. I could be wrong).

It turns out that our friends at the Center for Biological Diversity actually have a most wanted list of Congressfolk. Here’s their 2017 report. Of course it goes without saying that I don’t agree with them. My point is that many western states are represented -even in the CBD version of who are the “bad guys.” If you look at the second list, you’ll even see easterners.

For this report we identify the top 15 members of Congress who have emerged as enemies of public lands.
These federal lawmakers were selected because they:
• Authored and/or cosponsored the largest number of “anti-public lands” bills between 2011 and 2016;
• Put the narrow interests of extractive industries ahead of native wildlife, habitat protection, clean water, clean air and opposing rules or laws that limit the ability of extractive interests to dictate and dominate use of public lands.

The 15 Public Lands Enemies in rank order are:
1. Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah)
2. Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah, 1st District)
3. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah)
4. Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz., 4th District)
5. Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.)
6. Rep. Chris Stewart (R-Utah, 2nd District)
7. Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska, At Large)
8. Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.)
9. Rep. Raúl Labrador (R-Idaho, 1st District)
10. Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah, 3rd District)
11. Rep. Mark Amodei (R-Nev., 2nd District)
12. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska)
13. Rep. Steve Pearce (R-N.M., 2nd District)
14. Rep. Tom McClintock (R-Calif., 4th District)
15. Sen. Dean Heller (R-Nev.)

The ultimate goal of these Public Lands Enemies is to wrest control of these lands out of public hands and give it to corporate polluters and extractive industries, robbing future generations of wild places. With the West losing to development one football field’s worth of natural areas every two and a half minutes — an area larger than Los Angeles each year — these shared lands are more important than ever. Other legislators should be intensely wary of embracing the extreme views of these Public Lands Enemies.

CBD treads a very delicate line of getting people charged up and knowing at the same time that the dog of “real privatization” or even “state transfer” won’t hunt- and quote the polls in the same paper that indicate it. Oh well, and here are their second order enemies:

• Sen. Michael Crapo (R-Idaho)
• Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas)
• Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.)
• Sen. Michael Enzi (R-Wyo.)
• Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.)
• Sen. Jim Risch (R-Idaho)
• Rep. Diane Black (R-Tenn.)
• Rep. Paul Cook (R-Calif.)
• Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-S.C.)
• Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.)
• Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.)
• Rep. Doug LaMalfa (R-Calif.)
• Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.)
• Rep. Cathy McMorris Rogers (R-Wash.)
• Rep. Ted Poe (R-Texas)
• Rep. Scott Tipton (R-Colo.)
• Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.)
• Rep. Bruce Westerman (R-Ark.)

Back to my Wyoming point.. Congressfolk there barely show up, perhaps because there are so few Representatives.

I hear the word “extractive” quite a bit. It seems to imply that people who take things away (oil and gas, coal, woody material) are bad, and people who leave things on federal land (ski lifts, trails, dog and people leavings, microwave towers, pipelines, pitons) are good for the environment. I don’t think it’s that simple. Non-traditional forest products? Grazing takes some grass and leaves some deposits.. and so on.

16 thoughts on “The Different Kinds of “Privatizing” Public (Federal) Lands and CBD’s Most Wanted List”

  1. CBD’s rhetoric, as should be expected, is not accurate. Utah is not proposing privatizing federally managed lands.

    Utah’s proposal is quite specific and has been available for public review for years. I would have expected regular posters to have reviewed it prior to commenting on the proposal.

    Sheesh…

    Reply
  2. This regular poster doesn’t know what the “Utah’s proposal” is. His snarky reference to Utah was based on their overall persistence, including Matthew’s references and others like – https://forestpolicypub.com/2018/03/29/federal-lands-utah-style/
    https://forestpolicypub.com/2017/07/13/utah-counties-make-plans-for-federal-lands/
    https://forestpolicypub.com/2016/08/15/utah-to-sue-to-get-federal-lands/

    It is kind of mystifying why CBD left out Wyoming’s Rep. Liz Cheney-
    https://trib.com/opinion/rep-cheney-wants-to-remove-the-public-from-public-land/article_cb77e295-cccf-5e20-8d49-825852f2a05b.html
    And Sen. John Barrasso-
    https://www.wyofile.com/barrasso-bill-let-states-oversee-oil-gas-projects/

    Reply
  3. I don’t think that any of this is really so bad, other than you have added a bit of hype.
    Here’s my take..
    1. Using the Antiquities Act for large land areas is overreach and beyond the original intent. Plus Bears Ears has been overtly political, not in my mind not a good way to manage.
    2. I don’t see why having a public process for a county plan is a bad idea. Perhaps the FS could use it as an alternative to be analyzed, similar to a collaborative group, or the green group alternative.
    3. People in Utah, including R’s have valid concerns about how public lands are managed. That is why those efforts are around, but they are not going anywhere. So….
    Why is Utah such an enemy? Why did the Outdoor Recreation Industry choose to move its annual trade show to Denver because their elected officials did not have the correct political attitudes?
    My instincts tell me that there is more to this than a few Congressfolk whose speech is no more shocking than Tom McClintock of California.
    If I were to characterize this point of view it would be: “because of historical factors, most of our state is owned by the Federal government. At least on the FS side, the promise was that we could use the resources and that would make up for the taxes we can’t collect. But other parties have determined that we should make money from recreation (Moabize) but not from oil and gas, or other industries which pay people more, and give more $ back to the state. “
    I think if say Shell Oil owned 70% of the land in Utah and determined to keep locals from the things they like to do, we would say that was wrong. But whether a board of directors at a company, or voters across the country, the argument has to be that property rights (Federal lands) are more important that what local people might want. I think it was Matt Carroll of WSU from whom I first heard the term “domestic imperialism.” So there are a bunch of people on both sides that are very ideological about all this.

    Meanwhile day by day, topic by topic, FS, BLMers, local communities and national interest groups are hashing out the specifics of compromise. This doesn’t attract as much press, but is just as much reality as the conflicts that are reported on, (in order to?) reinforce tribalistic partisanship and, dare I say, “Western-State-o-phobia.”

    Reply
    • RE Sharon’s first point: “Using the Antiquities Act for large land areas is overreach and beyond the original intent. Plus Bears Ears has been overtly political, not in my mind not a good way to manage.”

      Imagine you are a Senator and/or Governor who learned the President planned to announce a 2 million acre National Monument in your state. You call the office of the President. His key public lands staff (CEQ) deny the rumor. The next morning the President travels to an adjacent state to announce the creation of the new National Monument in your state — during a campaign speech.

      And since that day every election year brings new rumors of National Monument designations. Wondering why some States want to transfer control of federal lands to the State? Look no further. It isn’t the size, although Sharon is correct that the original intent did not include vast areas. Rather, it is that the Antiquities Act has become a convenient political tool.

      Sharon’s second and third points: “I don’t see why having a public process for a county plan is a bad idea. Perhaps the FS could use it as an alternative to be analyzed, similar to a collaborative group, or the green group alternative.” and “People in Utah, including R’s have valid concerns about how public lands are managed. That is why those efforts are around, but they are not going anywhere. So….”

      I think Sharon’s points here goes to the nub of the NEPA planning process. I believe that if federal land planners would pay more attention to the development of the need for change, planning issues, planning criteria and alternative formulation, ALL stakeholders would be better able to influence the “decision space.”

      The process breaks down when the planners do what they want to do because they think what they want to do is the right thing to do.”

      Finally I’ll offer an opinion about Sharon’s question: “Why is Utah such an enemy?” I believe a lot of the animosity toward Utah stems from a dispute between Senators Feinstein and Boxer and former US Rep Jim Hansen over the first statewide Utah Wilderness bill. It got nasty, was perceived to be personal, and it bled over to the Clinton administration’s effort to revise Utah’s BLM Wilderness inventory. This was in contrast to similar BLM Wilderness efforts in Colorado, Arizona and New Mexico which were far more productive and less rancorous.

      ‘Bad blood’ on both sides. Nobody got over it.

      Reply
      • Brian, your story about the Feinstein-Boxer-Hansen dispute reminds me of a story I heard from a Forest Supervisor from a northern Idaho forest. She gave a talk at some group I was with about collaboration. As I recall, I remember her saying that she had seriously underestimated the impact of past bad blood on her efforts. As a paraphrase of a long-ago conversation it was something like “We can come into a situation and say “here’s where we’re at, let’s work together in our common interest” but people might not be there because of the past. And they might not tell you or ever talk to you about it.”

        Getting at these kinds of issues is something the peace profession probably knows a great deal about. and Peter Williams in our world.

        Reply
  4. One more thought…
    This may not be the best venue, but I wanted to respond to several posts regarding a topic I’ll call “states exerting more control over federally managed lands.”

    These efforts include everything from NEPA reform to efforts to transferring control of (some) federally managed lands to the states.

    Various efforts to improve stakeholder involvement have been underway for at least a decade. These efforts span a wide spectrum, from the transfer control of (some) public lands to the states (embodied by Utah’s HB 148) to relatively small project specific collaborative projects.

    We can argue the relative merits, but Sharon has accurately stated the fact:
    “Meanwhile day by day, topic by topic, FS, BLMers, local communities and national interest groups are hashing out the specifics of compromise.”

    Recent posts have me thinking about how to facilitate efforts to improve stakeholder involvement. One thing that might help is to focus on “why” states and other stakeholders are proposing various methods of more effective involvement in federal land planning.

    The issue of privatization is a key example. We could spend half a lifetime discussing whether Utah’s HB 148 effort would privatize more lands than Nevada Senator Harry Reid’s groundbreaking Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act (SNPLA – 2012). That arguably useful discussion runs the risk of missing the underlying point. A more productive discussion, I believe, would focus on the WHY.

    NCFP has the potential to add productive input to the discussion but it lacks only voices from the western states looking to leverage a more effective “voice” in the federal land planning process.

    Reply
  5. Correction… Reid’s SNPLA was passed in 1997.
    I think. Long time ago and the google machine failed me. Sorry.

    Reply
  6. How to “improve stakeholder involvement” in planning for federal lands is a worthy and necessary goal, but achieving it probably has to be built on a common understanding of what defines “stakeholder” and how much weight should be given to each. The list above was put together because these lawmakers “Put the narrow interests of extractive industries ahead of native wildlife, habitat protection, clean water, clean air and opposing rules or laws that limit the ability of extractive interests to dictate and dominate use of public lands.” How should these interests be involved in “hashing out compromise” locally? Is this something different than “state interests?”

    Reply
    • Maybe we should find someone from Clark County, NV. According to publications I have read, they seem to view it as a win-win.

      2500 acres privatized — millions and millions go to recreation, native wildlife, habitat, clean water and more.

      Reply
  7. Here, in the context of the Colville National Forest plan revision, is the “traditional” method of “privatizing,” which involves locals (including local government and local media) pressuring the federal decision-maker to give greater priority to their concerns than to those of “carpetbaggers.”
    https://www.statesmanexaminer.com/content/carpetbaggers-trying-dictate-local-forest-management

    That term implies that someone has no legitimate interest in an area, when in this case they own it. In particular, at-risk species and wilderness are national needs which each national forest must contribute to meeting. Pinchot may have promised locals special treatment a century ago, but his larger goal for the Forest Service was (and is) to determine the greatest good for the greatest number, and that number includes all of us. Let’s hope the Forest Service “can see what’s going on” and stand up for the rest of us.

    Reply
    • Jon. I mean no disrespect here. Indeed, I have come to appreciate and respect your perspective.

      In hopes of a more productive discussion I hope we could agree on a definition.

      Privatizing means what, exactly?

      Reply
      • I was playing loose with the term when I “quoted” it here. But I was taking off from your statement, “These efforts include everything from NEPA reform to efforts to transferring control of (some) federally managed lands to the states.” I just stretched it to include any ways of trying to influence a decision to favor local interests, (probably better characterized as “local control”), of which actual title transfer is the extreme.

        You’ve also mentioned the Nevada example (vs Utah), which I think is something different (and I thought we addressed that once here but I couldn’t find it). I don’t include land exchanges or small tract sales within this concept of “privatizing” (although that is technically what they may do).

        Reply
        • Copy. Thanks for clarifying.

          It might be worthwhile discussing our perceived distinctions between what Utah’s HB 148 contemplates vs the “small tract sales” made pursuant to the SNPLMA.

          Reply
  8. What to do about “bad blood” is an interesting question in this discussion, as well as a crucial challenge in any collaborative effort. Brian Hawthorne, Sharon, and Jon all touch on it. In my experience, which I assume others can attest as well, not only can there be bad blood, there can be different stories about why it happened. And Sharon reminds us of another related problem, which is that folks may not ever talk with you about those past issues. Some call those “the undiscussables,” a pretty apt name.

    This thread has strong examples of the challenges of bad blood. Taking just one, we can look at how Utah residents and others have been affected by the Utah Wilderness battles, the subsequent declarations of National Monument status, and, twenty years from when it flared up, the boundary changes and subsequent business reactions of some in the outdoor recreation industry. And that doesn’t even get into the background history going to the 19th century at least.

    Maybe a question is how to find a way forward when history is hot, alive, and emotional. From a collaboration perspective, combined with ideas from conflict management, I find it helpful to recognize as early as possible what I call “competing histories” because finding a competing history tells me I need to look for the frames or lenses through which people receive their story, their version. Those frames are the source of the bad blood and, with the right approach, folks will tell you enough, even if most of the story is still largely undiscussable. If successful, I also know I reached the stage of “sufficiently trusted outsider”, not always easy, sometimes not even possible, always worth trying.

    Then I do at least two things with those competing histories. First, I find ways to acknowledge those in my discussions with folks, to speak to the undiscussables myself so they don’t have to, because, as a sufficiently trusted outsider, I can do it with less emotion, less baggage. This is all part of what I call “re-humanizing” the discussion, getting beyond caricatures and stereotypes enough to have a conversation about a joint future. Folks who do collaboration work, like me, sometimes need to take on a “third-party” role of sharing what we’ve heard–with permission–because that relieves the actual participants from doing it themselves with all the emotion that can conjure.

    Second, I find ways to document the history, like in presentations or documents, which acknowledges it has been heard and, where possible and needed, gets at facts instead of stories. This is a way to use validation to accomplish some needed de-escalation.

    Let me leave you with this idea: Finding ways to distinguish “bad blood between people” from the history of events that produced that bad blood may give the people a better chance of finding a way forward. With hot issues, like debates about privatizing public lands, this could be helpful because you can create space between undiscussables and whatever really needs discussion.

    Reply

Leave a Reply to Jon Haber Cancel reply