Others argue that it was much ado about nothing much.
Either way, a new rule passed by the U.S. House of Representatives on the first day of its opening session has not gone unnoticed.
Sponsored by Rep. Bob Bishop, R-Utah, and passed as part of a collection of House rules that will apply to the 115th Congress, it basically declares that any transfer of federal lands will not result in a loss of revenue to the federal government.
It is an unwise change, argue those in favor of keeping vast tracts of public land under federal ownership.
Until now, the Congressional Budget Office calculated the cost of a land transfer to the treasury in terms of the grazing fees, extractive industry royalties, or other revenues the land was expected to generate over a 10-year period. Before a land transfer bill could be approved, the expected loss of revenue had to be balanced by budget cuts in other federal programs.
The new rule, say land transfer opponents, will make it easier for a Republican dominated Congress to sell off public lands wholesale, something often discussed and well-supported in many rural Western communities, where federal land ownership comprises in the neighborhood of a third of total state acreage (Washington, Montana, New Mexico and Colorado), to over 80 percent (Nevada).
But that is not the rule’s intention, argue those who favor an easier path to land transfers, especially in the case of small, limited parcels that could benefit states, local communities and native tribes. These lands could be managed in ways that generate more state and local tax revenues. The federal government would also benefit, explains Elizabeth Shogren in a recent High Country News article, by a reduced need to “subsidize communities adjacent to federal lands with programs such as Payments in Lieu of Taxes or Secure Rural Schools.”
Which side of the debate the incoming Trump administration will support has not been revealed.
What is clear, however, is that this unfolding issue deserves to be watched closely.