Bill Would Sell Land Promised to D.C.
By Juliet Eilperin and Debbi Wilgoren
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, November 10, 2005; A02
Tucked inside a huge budget bill headed for an upcoming House vote is a provision that could spur the federal government to sell off millions of acres of public land to mining interests, marking a major shift in the nation's mining policy.
The measure, which would generate an estimated $158 million in revenue over the next five years, would also put on the market key parcels of federal land in the District that had been promised to the city for initiatives such as redevelopment along the Anacostia River.
The surprise measure has angered even Republicans such as Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (Va.), who has vowed to fight it.
Congress has barred the government from selling land outright to mining companies since 1994, on the grounds that they should lease public land the same way oil and gas firms do to extract the minerals below. But House Resources Committee Chairman Richard W. Pombo (R-Calif.) said the measure would cut the deficit and promote private ownership. "In some states primarily owned by the federal government, it's important that more of that land become private property," Pombo said. "These environmental groups want the federal government to own everything."
Rep. Nick J. Rahall II (W.Va.), ranking Democrats on Pombo's committee, criticized the measure in an interview yesterday. He said that it "would result in a blazing fire sale of federal land to domestic and corporate interests."
Rahall said the government would collect hundreds of millions of dollars more if it charged an 8 percent royalty on the extracted minerals. "We're setting up Uncle Sam to be Uncle Sucker," he said.
The two sides offered sharply different estimates of how much land might be sold under the bill. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that no more than 360,000 acres would immediately come on the market, but environmentalists said 5.7 million acres could end up on the auction block. The bill would set the sale price at as much as $1,000 an acre or "fair market value," whichever is highest -- but based only on the land's surface value, not its potential mineral wealth.
"It could be the largest privatization of federal land in the last 100 years," said John D. Leshy, a professor at the University of California Hastings College of the Law who served as the Interior Department's solicitor under President Bill Clinton.
Pombo spokesman Brian Kennedy called those estimates "patently absurd."
The legislation, which would amend the 1872 Mining Law, would allow companies to buy land they are mining and adjacent parcels for "sustainable economic development." Critics said this language, which does not require buyers to prove there are minerals beneath, could lure companies searching for real estate investments.
"Anybody who want to could go out there and make a claim on public land could just go out and do it, and do other things with the land other than mining," said Mat Millenbach, the Bureau of Land Management's former state director in Utah and Montana.
But Luke Popovich, a spokesman for the National Mining Association, said the change would provide companies with the certainty they need to pursue operations.
"You're not suddenly turning Western mining lands into high-end condominium developments," Popovich said. "These companies are mining companies, and that's far, far removed from commercial exploration."
Pombo's plan has also outraged D.C. politicians because it would undermine legislation sponsored by Davis and endorsed by President Bush that would transfer land for free to the city to compensate for Congress's ban on a commuter tax and for the resulting increase in the city's fiscal burden.
The areas affected by the bill include 100-acre Poplar Point, where the District is planning a 70-acre waterfront park surrounded by offices, shops, hundreds of apartments and possibly a professional soccer stadium; 15 acres of parking lots and fields just north of Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Stadium, where the Washington Nationals baseball team currently plays; and parcels near the Eastern Market Metro station on Capitol Hill, Waterside Mall in Southwest and the site of a new stadium for the Nationals just off South Capitol Street.
Much of the land is central to the Anacostia Waterfront Initiative, a 20-year, multibillion-dollar plan to create vibrant neighborhoods, parks, trails and cultural amenities on industrial, blighted or underused land.
"Although we understand the need to balance the budget and trim . . . we really don't think the D.C. land is the appropriate vehicle to do it," said Gregory M. McCarthy, Mayor Anthony A. Williams's deputy chief of staff for policy and legislative affairs. "We hope that on the floor, or else in conference, the D.C.-specific land stuff can come out of the bill."
Davis, whose bill is awaiting a Resources Committee vote, said he has told House leaders that he will vote against the final budget bill if it includes Pombo's language on the District. "At the end of the day, this stuff is not going to become law," Davis said of the D.C.-specific provisions.
But Pombo said the bill still gives the District half the land for free.
Link to Report
Special thanks to Carrie Dann for this information.
Report from Indian Country Today:
Federal sale may include treaty lands
Posted: November 11, 2005
by: David Melmer / Indian Country Today
Graphic Courtesy Bureau of Land Management
WASHINGTON - A House Resources Committee budget reconciliation package designed to raise money to ease the national deficit would, according to critics, open up the largest land sale in this country's history.
The original House version of the proposed bill contained provisions that opened the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for drilling, but after markup ANWR was removed. Drilling in ANWR is currently in the Senate version.
At risk are federal lands in the entire western United States - the homeland of many tribes, including the Western Shoshone.
The lands, controlled by the Bureau of Land Management, could be put up for sale should the package be approved. An amendment to the reconciliation package, introduced by Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev., would have the effect of opening the land to development by many companies, opponents argue. The proposal would require the land be claimed for mining or be contiguous to a mining claim.
The Western Shoshone have been fighting land issues for decades, and recently finished a contentious battle with Congress over a settlement.
According to committee spokesman Matt Streit, the bill and amendment is intended to allow companies to purchase land and keep the infrastructure in place after mining operations have been exhausted.
''It is aimed at continued economic sustainability in the West. Rural communities are dependent on resources, but when the mining resources are depleted the company takes all of the infrastructure off the land and the community has no economic engine,'' Streit said.
He said some mining interests have slivers of land within the middle of their claim and the BLM owns the mineral rights to that small sliver. That would be the land the proponents expect will be purchased.
''Sustainable economic development could include condominium construction, ski resorts, gaming casinos, you name it, flying in the face of America's commitment to protect these lands,'' said Rep. Nick Rahall, D-W.Va. and ranking committee member.
''If enacted, this proposal would result in a blazing fire sale of federal lands to domestic and international corporate interests. This is the worst kind of sham reform of the mining law ever to be promoted in my tenure in Congress,'' Rahall said.
In the past, buyers had to prove they had a legitimate plan to mine the land. The new legislation removes that requirement; in fact, it lifts a mining patent claim moratorium. The Mining Act of 1872, which regulates hard-rock mining, required that minerals must be found before the claim could be established for $2.50 or $5 per acre.
The proposed bill would allow the land to be sold based on the surface land value without proof of the value of minerals within the land.
Rahall has asked the Rules Committee to remove the portion of the bill that would lift the moratorium on hard-rock mining; however, the wording currently remains.
The federal government considers 90 percent of Western Shoshone lands as federal land. The Western Shoshone have successfully worked to defeat past attempts to privatize their homelands, and land that could be sold lies within the boundaries of the 1863 Treaty of Ruby Valley, established for the Western Shoshone.
''For the Western Shoshone people, this struggle is not just one of who owns the land, but one of deep cultural and spiritual significance. As a people we are deeply rooted to the lands where we were placed by the Father God (Ah-Peh) and have a responsibility to safeguard those lands,'' the Western Shoshone said in a prepared statement.
More tribes than the Western Shoshone need to be concerned: the entire western half of the United States could be affected. Millions of acres of land controlled by the federal government lie within the boundaries of aboriginal homelands of most Western tribes, or are part of land claims or are found just adjacent to reservations.
Opponents to the bill claim that 270 million acres are involved in this potential sale. Streit argued that only 360,000 acres would be involved and ''in reality, a third of that.''
He said that according to the Congressional Budget Office, the potential sale of land would bring in $250 million, and that any figures the opponents come up with are ''inflated.''
Kristen Bossi, Rahall's press secretary, said the Resources Committee was ordered to come up with a $2.4 billion economic package and that drilling in ANWR will make that possible. ''There is a question of why [western lands need to be sold].''
Treaty concerns, such as off-reservation hunting, fishing and gathering, will be affected. Access to sacred sites may be limited or denied by private owners. Supporters of American Indian treaties, such as the Indigenous Environmental Network, claim that approval of this budget package could be ''the final blow to indigenous nations and communities attempting to re-establish title or use of what is rightfully theirs.''
For years, the Lakota of South Dakota have not accepted a land settlement from the federal government for the taking of the Black Hills. The Lakota continue to request the return of the sacred Black Hills. Open-pit gold and feldspar mines pock the landscape of the Black Hills and the protectors worry the land will also be up for sale for other development. Many mining claims have been taken out in the Black Hills.
''Would Rep. Pombo consider that indigenous sovereign nations be given first right of refusal before ever selling federally held public lands to corporate interests? The Black Hills are today known to be indigenous homelands, and members of the Bear Butte International Alliance certainly do not favor Congress offering for sale to mining interests our sacred landscapes,'' said Nancy Kile, secretary of the Defenders of the Black Hills and the Bear Butte International Alliance.
John Leshy, former solicitor in the Department of Interior under the Clinton administration, told the Denver Post that millions of mining claims were filed over the past two centuries and it wouldn't be difficult for a company to find a claim. He said, ''It's not about mining; it's about real estate.''
But Streit said that was not the case at all. He said that companies would have to abide by current mining rules.
''It is our spiritual teaching that the Earth is our mother and to try to remove us from our lands or displace us by privatization efforts would be to commit spiritual genocide on our people,'' stated a Western Shoshone Defense Project written statement.
© Indian Country Today November 11, 2005. All Rights Reserved
Link to Report
Budget Reconciliation Package pulled!!
Forwarded message from Velma Smith, National Evironmental Trust:
The budget has been pulled, because leadership has not yet mustered the
votes for the reconciliation package. The House has gone into recess
and they are not scheduled to get back at this til Tuesday at the
earliest.
This is a momentary reprieve but not a win. The best news is that it
gives us time to get more calls, letters and emails into Congressional
offices and more time to talk about this issue with the press. This is a
great time to work on letters to the editor talking about the threats to
local areas and about the antiquated mining law.
More info as things develop.
Velma M. Smith
National Environmental Trust
1200 Eighteenth St, NW, Suite 500
Washington, DC 20036
202-887-8859
Velma M. Smith
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Shimek Robert Shimek
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 3:00 PM
Everybody,
Thanks so much for adding your support to the effort to strip the Pombe
amendment from the House Budget Bill. Attached is the letter that was
delivered to the House yesterday at 2 pm. Some names do not appear on
the
letter, but may so in an updated version if needed in the coming days.
While
the language remains in the House version of the Budget Bill, the Senate
version, passed last week, does not. There is a very good chance we can
get
it removed in the conference committee when the two houses of congress
meet
to reconcile the two versions that each house passed. I have shipped the
letter off to a couple Reps today, hoping that the house votes down the
budget bill tonight.
If you pass this on, do so with care. Again, thank you all so much for
supporting this effort. We may have very well been the only ones who
raised
these important issues. With your continued support, we will continue to
do
so in the future.
Peace with Earth
Robert Shimek
IEN Mining Projects Coordinator
Microsoft Word Document Flyer Sign-on
Again, special thanks to Carrie Dann!
Contents
Main Page
Last updated on November 15, 2005