• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • The Reid Energy Bill: Another Government Land Grab

    The all-too-familiar idea “a crisis is a terrible thing to waste” has reared its head in Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D–NV) Clean Energy Jobs and Oil Company Accountability Act of 2010. In addition to proposing hurdles high enough to trip efforts to develop energy resources in the Gulf of Mexico, the proposal would gift to the greens one of their long sought desires: a full pot of money in the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LCWF). It would be a big pot of cash that can be spent “without further appropriation” to, among other things, gobble up more private property.

    Similar provisions are contained in the House’s Consolidated Land, Energy, and Aquatic Resources Act of 2009 (CLEAR Act). Structuring such a perpetual funding machine is one of the many recommendations the green community made to the Obama Administration in “Transition to Green: Leading the Way to a Healthy Environment, a Green Economy and a Sustainable Future.”

    The LCWF was created decades ago and authorized for $900 million annually to come predominately from receipts from the government’s offshore oil and gas leases. As it is, Congress has had to authorize expenditures from the fund, and the greens have been frustrated by a history of it not being fully funded. Still, according to CRS, between 1965 and 2002, $8.7 billon in LCWF funds enabled the National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Forest Service, and Bureau of Land Management to acquire about 4.5 million acres, an area slightly smaller than New Jersey. In the same period, CRS found that the LCWF also funded 37,000 state and local projects totaling approximately $3.5 billion to conserve another 2.3 million acres.

    Reid’s bill would fill the fund with a minimum of just under $5 billion through fiscal year 2016. Spending these funds would no longer require congressional approval. Between fiscal year (FY) 2017 and FY 2020, all LWCF funding—without fiscal year limitation—would be subject to appropriations. For FY 2021 and beyond, the LWCF pot would be filled with a minimum of a half billon annually and, again, evade congressional approval.

    When this concept was floated during the 107th Congress as the Conservation and Reinvestment Act Fund (CARA), CRS noted that “support for the CARA legislation seems less intense in this Congress, possibly because of growing concern about a likely federal budget deficit in future years.”

    Well, it’s the future, and the budget deficits are beyond what anyone could have imagined during the 107th. However, even if we were not saddled with enormous budget deficits, at some point one has to ask just how much more government ownership and control over land we need. Currently the federal government owns in the neighborhood of 653,299,090 acres. That’s an area larger than Mexico and Afghanistan combined, and it does not include lands owned by state, county, or municipal governments.

    Beyond the simple fact that the federal government does not need to be spending even more money it does not have, there are numerous other reasons this is a bad idea. For one, the federal government can’t manage what it already has. In 2003 the Government Accounting Office (GAO) reported, “Over the years, the [National Park Service’s] estimates of the cost of its deferred maintenance have varied widely—sometimes by billions of dollars. Currently, the agency estimates that its deferred maintenance backlog will cost over $5 billion.” By 2007, GAO reported, “Last year, the [Interior] department spent $1.6 billion on annual maintenance and construction but had a $9.6 billion backlog of deferred maintenance projects.”

    Along the same lines, the Government Services Administration reported in 2004 that the federal government owned some 5,104,608 acres classified as “vacant.” That’s an area larger than Massachusetts. Do we really need to increase the maintenance burden for federal agencies when they can’t handle what they already have?

    But also gobbling up more private property is a bad idea for the economy in general and for communities across the country. Federal policy already recognizes that federal land ownership can erode local tax bases by having provisions for payments in lieu of taxes (PILT). According to the Department of the Interior, the amount authorized for PILT in FY 2010 under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 was $358.5 million. Do we really need to take more land off local tax roles?

    Further, once part of the federal estate, land is more subject to the whims of government regulators and of Congress. Using the regulatory machine, plans are floating around the Obama Administration to lock up millions of acres of the federal estate, which would likely thwart job-creating activities like ranching, mining, and forestry.

    For its part, Congress already crushed any hope of significant economic use of millions of acres of federal land by jamming through the 1,248-page Omnibus Lands Act of 2008. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that monstrosity at more than $6.4 billion, and that does not include royalties and resulting tax revenues that might have been generated from forgone economic uses. Do we really need to constrict economic use of more land?

    The greens shill for an ever larger federal estate, peddling the idea of an ecotourism economic boom. Senator Reid’s home state is already 84.48 percent owned by the federal government, and that does include any foreclosed housing (FNE, FME, FHA) now in government hands. While there are quite a few unemployed in Nevada with enough time on their hands to go backpacking, more government land is not what they need, nor does the nation need a special entitlement nestled within the federal government to please the insatiable greens.

    Posted in Energy [slideshow_deploy]

    20 Responses to The Reid Energy Bill: Another Government Land Grab

    1. Tina Past, Las Vegas says:

      Mr. Gordon – you're "outrage" is disingenuous at best. The "land grab" that you are so overheated about is nothing of the kind. The LWCF, funded by oil and gas royalties, provides invaluable resources to acquire, protect and manage environmentally sensitive and heritage lands. You could have at least informed your readers that the fund was completely raided by the Reagan administration and never restored or made whole. You seem to have a problem with the American people as an entity holding property. From the state you singled out with over 85% of its lands owned by the American people, let me assure you that most of it is more than available for economic use, particularly mining and grazing. Neither of these sectors have paid a fair price for the extraction or use of these resources, particularly mining with the 1872 Federal MIning Act not being updated or revised since that date. You need to be honest – you don't want the American people to protect their heritage lands , but if they do – you want American businesses to be able to exploit it to the fullest extent at the lowest possible cost if at all and no responsibility to repair what they damage or destroy.

      Nevada, a top 10 tourism economy and the nation's largest gold mining market on a boom is having a most difficult time. Yes, close to 85% of the state are owned by the feds – I am proud to be a green shill from this great state and value our western culture and identity. Trust me when I tell you – eco-tourism and clean energy development are desired by our citizens so we can diversify our economy and sustain our way of life. We need it because the nuclear testing, Air Force and Navy bombing ranges, gold mining, cattle and sheep grazing – all of which use these lands are insufficient to sustain our economy and way of life.

      You and the Heritage Foundation need to take your nostaligic, unrealistic glasses off and join the 21st century – besides breeches, powdered wigs and stockings are long out of fashion. I don't know where you are located, but out west we haven't heard any outcries from the natural resource industries of a shortage of land areas to forest, mine, drill or graze. In your view, the only Americans worthy of getting something for nothing private landholders – the rest of America is S.O.L. It is regrettable that you hold the American people is such disregard and disrespect. I suppose if you had your way the monuments of D.C., Mt. Rushmore, the national parks, forests and seashores would be sold off because only private interests should hold property. Thank goodness you and your buddies are a small, albeit archaic minority. Even most of American corporations and their owners, boards and stockholders don't share your views regarding stewardship of America's bounty and beauty. Thank God.

    2. Frank DuBois says:

      Great post.

      Your links for "government ownership" and "plans" do not work.

      Will post on my blog Sat., with due credit and link.

    3. Pingback: Pain Stops Here | Amega Wand Works

    4. Pingback: Obama visits auto plants, hailing federal rescue | Healthy Lifestyles

    5. Tim AZ says:

      The federal agencies mentioned in this article merit serious consideration for abolishment, at the very least extreme downsizing. How much spending could be cut in this area of government alone? How much money could be generated through the sale of federal land that has been acquired since Ronaldus Magnus was President? Does it make sense to allow our government to hold land that we can no longer afford to maintain? Does land hoarding by the government with the intent to seize the people's natural resources serve the people?

    6. Pingback: This Week in Washington - August 2, 2010 | RedState

    7. Tim Az says:

      These government agencies mention in this article sound like the perfect place to start downsizing government and it’s land holdings. I wonder how much spending could be cut by ridding ourselves of these burdensome agencies? How much money could be generated to pay down the debt, by selling off all of the federal lands that have been confiscated since Ranoldus Magnus was president?

    8. Spiritof76, NH says:

      It is time for the states to confiscate all the federal lands under eminent domain. The lands belong to the states. The states can lease the lands for energy exploration and production. The states can then set up power plants within their borders for their own use. Bring all the manufacturing back to their states. The states must raise their own militia and train them well. Let the federal government try to force the states. That is the only way, it appears, that one can deal with lawlessness of Washington DC. Courts can not be relied upon for upholding the Constitution.

    9. Pingback: This Week in Washington – August 2, 2010 | The Daily Conservative

    10. Julie K. says:

      Let me think: if the land stays in the states hands, the energy prices could stay lower, but if the land would be in private hands, we should have to count with higher prices for any sources obtained from this land. If the taxes would be high enough to support maintaining all state owned land there shouldn’t be a problem… But how many people can stand higher taxes?

    11. Larry Schillinger, O says:

      Tina Past, Las Vegas, Nevada. Just shows you that the progressives are scared to death of the truth, is it not strange that some lib would show up on this website?

    12. Pingback: Michelle Malkin » How Obama is locking up our land

    13. Pingback: How Obama is locking up our land

    14. Pingback: How Obama is locking up our land | The Daily Conservative

    15. Pingback: It’s not your money … and apparently not your land either. | Radio Vice Online

    16. Pingback: Obama’s Plans to Steal Western Lands | Impeach Obama Campaign

    17. Pingback: How Obama is locking up our land (coming more redistribution of wealth-to minorities) | Pitts Report

    18. Pingback: Hot Air » Great Outdoors Initiative a federal land grab?

    19. Pingback: How Obama is locking up our land - Wichita

    20. Pingback: Obama’s Gain and our Loss of Private Property | Independent Sentinel

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.