No, It's not that I'm obsessing on trees with another post relating to the US Forest Service. It's just that I'm not really clear on the importance of an item "tucked in at the end of a Monday morning news release... [about] a White House plan to sell off about 200,000 acres of public land," according to the New West community site. The sale of the various "disconnected parcels" (to be specified later this week) is expected to contribute part of the $800 million needed for the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act, which helps rural counties maintain their schools and other services as timber revenue fluctuates. A lot of folks are not at all happy that President Bush's proposed budget cuts federal funding for the act, according to an online news services in Oregon.
Of Oregon's 36 counties, 33 received payments through the county payments program, totaling almost $280 million last year alone. Before passage of the county payments law, Oregon counties were receiving payments as the result of 1908 and 1937 laws specifying that the government share 25 percent of U.S. Forest Service (USFS) receipts and 50 percent of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) receipts with counties in any state that hosts Federal land from which timber is cut. These payments had been used to help finance rural schools and roads.
OK, rural counties need the money. And according to the press release, what's being sold isn't really important land, just "parcels of forest land that are isolated or inefficient to manage due to location or other characteristics." But if selling public land is a good solution, why bury the idea? Among those who did notice, most don't think it will fly. "It's like selling your homestead to pay your credit cards," the Denver Post quotes Rep. Mark Udall (D-Col).
Recent attempts to sell public land have not been popular. In December, Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev., withdrew his plan to allow mining companies to buy public land amid complaints that it would lead to backcountry development. Tancredo, R-Colo., introduced a bill in September that would order the Interior Department to sell 15 percent of its land to offset the costs of repairing Hurricane Katrina's damage to the Gulf Coast. The Interior Department oversees the BLM and the national park system.
The Idaho State Journal notes the opposition of outdoors enthusiasts as well as environmentalists, quoting Marv Hoyt, Idaho director of the Greater Yellowstone Coalition, who figures that "some favorite hunting and fishing spots" will be included. And as a way to shore up the funding shortfall, it just won't work. "Those isolated parcels couldn't come close to raising $800 million. That is simply a way to try to deflect criticism they will surely get," he's quoted.
This is not a new idea. This is an idea that has raised its silly head over the past four decades.... There are many ways the administration can balance the budget, and selling forest land is not one of them. If the president is truly concerned about this, maybe he should consider not trying to expand and make permanent tax cuts for the wealthy and oil companies and other large corporations.
OK, as a city-bound Easterner, I don't really understand the many points of the public lands debate in the West. That entire debate gets short shrift in the national media, and this one in particular is entirely new to me. But I figure if the administration is considering selling the people's property, the people might want to know about it.