Want to start an argument in these parts? Suggest that the federal government ought to sell off the public lands that so many Montanans consider their personal playgrounds, source of livelihood and, in fact, birthright.
It's pretty hard to live in the West without developing at least some appreciation for people's attachment to national forests and other public lands.
It's an interesting debate - the merits of public vs. private ownership. Given the need to clearly understand the value of these lands, it may even be a necessary debate.
And that's what is most wrong about a provision tucked into a House budget bill by a California congressman, due for a vote as early as today. Rep. Richard Pombo, R-Calif., tacked into that massive bill a provision requiring federal land-management agencies to sell mining claims and land adjacent to them. Pombo's method - an obscure bit of type inserted into a bill choc full of more noteworthy provisions - aims to make the decision to privatize lands without the hassle of public debate.
The method of privatization is adaptation of an archaic law - the 1872 Mining Act, which allowed miners to acquire for $2.50 an acre ownership of land where they staked mining claims. That law was written at a time when the highest and best use of everyplace west of the Mississippi was presumed to be mining. Pombo's provision raises the price to $1,000 an acre or fair market value, but it retains the 133-year-old presumption that mining claims ought to trump all other uses. Of course, nothing in the proposed legislation actually requires anyone to mine the land they buy. Once sold, the privatized lands would be subject to any sort of development.
The provision's proponents have asserted that the provision would likely result in the sale of “only” hundreds of thousands of acres. Critics say the acreage could run into millions. But even if it's just one acre, there's a principle involved. These lands have been managed as part of a public trust for generations. Arguably, some of them could be put to different uses. If so, make the argument. In any event, sale of public assets is a decision for the owners to make - not the custodians. The public owns the lands and is entitled to participate in the decision.
Remove that provision from the budget bill and reintroduce it as stand-alone legislation. We'll enjoy the discussion and perhaps learn a few things in the process. But don't try to slip something like this past in hopes we won't notice. Congress doesn't have to do that for anything justified on its merits.
|
 |
 |
Add your comment now! Write your comment in the form below.
(Email address is for verification only. If you'd like to email a story, look for the link above)