16 October 17 AM
Mojave Trails National Monument. (photo: Getty Images)
Fight Over National Monuments Intensifies
16 October 17
onservatives have opened a new front in the fight over the future of America’s national monuments.
House Republicans are moving forward with a bill to reform a century-old conservation law, raising the stakes in their ongoing effort to curtail the president's’ ability to set aside wide swaths of federal land as national monuments and protect them from future development.
The new legislation, from Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah), comes as the White House mulls reductions to several previously declared monuments. That’s an effort environmentalists consider an affront to the Antiquities Act, a law signed by conservation champion Theodore Roosevelt in 1906.
Conservatives, industry groups and Westerners have long pushed for changes to the Antiquities Act, saying presidents of both parties have abused the law, handcuffing local communities who could look to create jobs on public land. President Trump is an ally in that effort.
Environmentalists and most Democrats consider the Antiquities Act a bedrock American conservation law and have vowed to fight any effort to water it down.
The reform effort has its impetus in what conservatives consider an abuse of federal monument designation powers.
Sixteen presidents have used the Antiquities Act to lock up federal land over the last century. But President Obama used it the most often, and protected by far the most acreage — 553.6 million acres of land and sea monuments — inspiring a fresh round of legislative proposals.
“It has good intentions,” said Matt Anderson, the Director of the Coalition for Self-Government in the West at the Utah-based free market Southerland Institute.
“Transparency and the democratic process have produced sensible legislation for 200 years, but for some reason the Antiquities Act has been an exception. It’s time we bring it into the modern age.”
Bishop’s bill would give presidents the power to declare monuments of up to 640 acres without restriction. But as potential designations get bigger, they would have to meet other conditions, including environmental reviews and approval by state and local officials who are currently not involved in the monument designation process.
It’s not the only legislative attempt to change the law, but it has attracted a wave of opposition from Democrats and outside groups who consider it a major threat, given the speed with Republicans moved it through committee.
“What is being done here is really unprecedented,” said Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.), the ranking member of the House Natural Resources Committee.
“It has huge implications for our public land and our natural assets all the way down the line. … The attitude has to be that this is not only worth fighting, but it’s consequential if it ever got to President Trump for his signature.”
The bill is one facet of a broader GOP push to overhaul the nation’s system of national monuments.
In April, Trump ordered Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke to assess 27 monument designations from both parties dating back to 1996, and Zinke is reportedly planning to suggest Trump shrink several of those designations. Greens have vowed to sue to test Trump’s ability to do so.
Trump’s order has emboldened critics of the Antiquities Act. At the time he called the law “another egregious abuse of federal power.”
“You have to acknowledge the change in tone of this administration from previous administrations. This is a president being willing to limit his own power and authority under the Antiquities Act,” said Ethan Lane, the executive of the Public Lands Council, which represents ranchers in fights over federal land.
“For those us that work on this issue, it’s been a roadblock, because no president wants to restrict his own power.”
But changing the Antiquities Act, rather than rescinding previously monuments, is a higher priority for the interest groups who oppose monument-making power.
“This is more important than any of the existing monument designations,” said Kathleen Sgamma, the president of the Western Energy Alliance oil industry group.
“Oil and gas has generally been avoided in monument designations. We have not had a large impact — it hasn’t been zero, but it hasn’t been significant. We are much more focused, moving forward, on Antiquities Act reform.”
That makes Bishop’s bill a rallying point for reform supporters.
Republicans on the Natural Resources Committee, which Bishop chairs, rallied around the legislation and approved it on Wednesday night, sending it to the floor for consideration.
Republicans on the Natural Resources Committee, which Bishop chairs, rallied around the legislation and approved it on Wednesday night, sending it to the floor for consideration.
“What we’re doing now is saying, there is a flawed act that allows presidents to act indiscriminately and on a limb and all their deliberations have to be done in secret,” Bishop said. “Instead of doing away with the act, let’s fix it.”
Conservationists pushed back hard against Zinke’s monuments review, producing 2.5 million comments against it, going on the air to pressure the former Montana congressman to support protected lands, and commissioning polls showing support for monuments among voters.
“This experiment in public lands has been woven into who we are as Americans,” said Land Tawney, the head of the Backcountry Hunters and Anglers sportsman group.
“Since Teddy Roosevelt started that … there have been folks trying exploit those resources. … I have confidence in the American people that they will step up, because they have before and that’s why we have the conservation legacy in this country.”
They vowed to wage a similar campaign against any legislative effort to rewrite the monuments-making power, promising a campaign based not only on their belief in the Antiquities Act but an economic message about the value of public lands.
“We’re worked with outdoor industry associations to show what the economic value of public land is. We’re working this on a broad scale,” said Whit Fosburgh, the president of the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership.
“This is fundamental to making America different from the rest of the world. I think we’ve seen these battles going on ever since Teddy Roosevelt. ... The attacks over time have gotten more sophisticated.”
The article above names Southerland Institute
This extremist Think Tank is funded by anonymous donors because of its IRS designation.
Review their platform:
".....The Sutherland Institute is a 501(c)(3) organization, which is the IRS tax designation for a non-profit that is eligible for tax-deductible donations. According to the Institute's website, Sutherland does not perform contract work or accept government grants.
The Institute's name is derived from George Sutherland, the first (and as of 2016 the only) Utahn to serve on the US Supreme Court. Sutherland also served as a United States Senator prior to being appointed to the bench in 1922. The Sutherland Institute was founded in 1995 by Gaylord K. Swim. Swim was a noted Utah businessman and philanthropist. He died in 2005.[4]
Paul Mero served as president from 2000 until 2014, when he stepped down at the board's request.[5] He was replaced by Stanford Swim, son of founder Gaylord Swim, as Interim President. In March 2016, Boyd Matheson, a former chief of staff for US Senator Mike Lee, was appointed president of the think tank.[2]
In 2016, the Institute had fifteen staffers and a $3 million annual budget.[6] Matheson said he intends to remake the organization into a "nationally recognized idea factory for political entrepreneurs, a launching pad for thought leadership and a guardian of timeless principles."[6]
.....""...Economic policy
The Institute's policy research on Utah's economy has focused on issues such as health care and property tax reform.[7][8] The Institute has advocated for increased charity health care as a method to provide health services for the uninsured (in place of government welfare or assistance programs).[9]
- Education policy
Sutherland has advocated for greater educational freedom and less reliance on public schools.[10] In March 2007, Utah became the first state to pass a universal school voucher law. The voucher law, which was supported by the Institute, was overturned by referendum vote in November 2007. During the run-up to the referendum election, Sutherland issued a publication that presented the Institute's view on the history of education in Utah. Sutherland released a subsequent companion article in a peer-reviewed law journal as part of an academic conference about school choice.[11][12]
...."
No comments:
Post a Comment