Congressman Bentz Statement on Public Lands

WASHINGTON, D.C.– To be clear - I do support and encourage sale or exchange of parcels of federal land when there is a clear economic or social demand for such disposition, and when that disposition follows appropriate procedure and is generally supported by those affected. I include congressional action as an appropriate procedure. I do not support a mandated disposition of millions of acres of federal land, the amount of which was arbitrarily established, the primary goal not being to respond to demand, but instead being the removal of land from federal ownership.

A policy to permanently dispose of massive amounts of land currently owned and managed for multiple use by the federal government should not be included in a reconciliation package where debate, by design, is truncated or completely avoided. A decision to irreversibly divest the nation of  federally owned land is an important policy issue that must be carefully discussed with and designed by those of us representing states impacted by this policy.

Of particular concern in making any decision to sell public land is the sale’s impact on those who have rights in the land or currently have some type of use of the land. Indian Tribes, neighbors, grazing permittees, those utilizing public access across the land, hunters, watershed function, holders of easements, and environmental impact are some of the issues that must be taken into account in making a decision to alter ownership. These realities make the process used in selecting parcels of federal land offered for sale extremely important.

Some might argue that the abject failure of the federal government to adequately manage BLM and Forest Service land justifies its sale. But sale of this land to someone else is no way to assure it’s proper management.  The best way to protect this land is to identify and correct the reasons these agencies are failing in their mission. The easiest observation to make is that environmental organizations, using the ESA, CWA, CAA, and other environmental laws, compliant federal judges, and the Access to Justice Act, (an act that pays the attorney fees of plaintiffs who successfully sue the federal government) through protracted and expensive litigation, make a mockery of agency’s attempts to craft management plans. If our nation is to be a landowner (and it is), it must take care of that land. This means that the laws that are being perverted to line the pockets of environmental organizations at the expense of the taxpayer and our forests and rangelands, must be changed so that such perversion is stopped. 
 

###