New rules could put locals in charge of Grand Canyon
GOP calls it a boon; Dems call it ‘absurd’
A little-noticed change in the rules of the House approved this week would make it easier to transfer federal land to local governments — a longtime goal of Republicans who believe the federal government controls too much property and a nightmare scenario for conservationists who fear local governments will open the land to greater development.
The change treats such transfers as cost-free to the federal government even if they reduce federal revenue from mining, grazing rights and other sources. Without the change, members of Congress could have blocked a land transfer by requiring proponents to show how the lost revenue would be made up through budget cuts or increasing revenue from other sources. These “payas-you-go” rules have been in effect since 2010.
All but three Republicans voted for the measure, and all 193 Democrats voted against what some see as a major victory for long-standing GOP efforts to hand over federal land to local governments that could sell it for commercial development. It was part of a larger package of changes that set the rules the 115th Congress will operate under for the next two years. A proposed rule to scuttle the Office of Congressional Ethics was part of the same package, but it was withdrawn before the vote.
The land conveyance provision’s author, House Natural Resources Chairman Rob Bishop, R-Utah, characterized it as a boon for local control of the lands. “This rule democratizes our process by eliminating bureaucratic red tape,” Bishop said. “It facilitates the transfer of land from the federal government to the local government where people will have a larger voice in the management of their lands. Washington bureaucrats don’t listen to people. Local governments do.”
The Democratic staff of the Natural Resources Committee called the provision “outrageous and absurd,” noting that the broad definition of federal lands could see the transfer of the Grand Canyon National Park to the city of Flagstaff, Ariz., or even permit transfer of the ownership of the Pentagon and post offices to other entities “officially” at no cost to the American people.
It added that tribes and local governments are unlikely to have the budget or staff to manage large tracts of federal land and would likely sell them “to the highest bidder.”
“The proposal is one more instance of the Trump plan to use federal resources to enrich wealthy friends and donors by letting them get their hands on invaluable federal lands currently owned by, and open to, all Americans,” the staff memo said.
The practical effect of the change is that no member can raise a point of order on any land transfer’s impact on the budget. Since 2010, Congress has been constrained by pay-as-you-go rules to offset the costs of any measure by budget cuts or raising revenue. Supporters note that there are few offsets within the jurisdiction of federal lands subcommittees. Advocates of the rules change say that federal lands can create a burden for local communities because they are tax-exempt and are often mismanaged.