By Jessica Goad and Tom Kenworthy via CAP

Despite the many problems that states and municipalities face today—from budget shortfalls to unemployment—seven western states have decided to embark on unconstitutional and quixotic battles attempting to force the federal government to turn millions of acres of public lands over to the states. Doing so, however, would result in the eventual exploitation for private profits of these beautiful parks, refuges, forests, and other lands because the leaders driving such efforts would prefer to see quick economic gains from resource extraction rather than prioritizing these areas’ more sustainable economic uses such as recreation.

Rather than being managed so that all Americans can enjoy them, turning our public lands over to states would result in their management on the whims of governors and state legislatures, who in the West are often quite conservative and tend to ideologically favor limited regulation and private profits. According to one state lands commissioner, these bills would be “catastrophic” to the public lands that Americans know and love.

Clashes between states and the federal government over their respective authorities have long been a regular feature of our politics, especially when it comes to issues regarding control over federal public lands in the West. More than 700 million acres of federal public lands, including national parks, national forests, and national monuments, belong to all Americans, and are tremendous economic generators—the Department of the Interior stimulated $385 billion in economic development and more than 2 million jobs in 2011 alone. At times, conflicts over ownership of the federally managed parks, forests, refuges, and other properties have grown into a regional cause in the West, as they did during the “Sagebrush Rebellion,” a political movement demanding the turnover of federal lands to the states that arose in the 1970s but eventually fizzled out in the late 1980s.

We are now seeing yet another iteration of that hardy but misguided western impulse. These state legislative efforts are nothing more than corporate-backed messaging tools that can be traced to conservative front groups such as the American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC, and Americans for Prosperity, as we discuss further below. The proposals run directly contrary to abundant evidence that Americans and westerners support federal management of their public lands and value the economic benefits those lands provide, especially when they are protected from mining and drilling and are used instead for recreation and other more sustainable purposes.

In the past year, legislatures in seven western states — Utah, Arizona, Wyoming, New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada, and Idaho — have passed, introduced, or explored legislation demanding that the federal government turn over millions of acres of federal public lands to the states. If successful, these bills could be disastrous: Rather than being managed for the benefit and use of the American public, these lands will instead be managed in whatever way each state wants to use them—which generally means maximizing private profits through mining, drilling, and other resource extraction.

These lawmakers are waging a losing battle that amounts to little more than political grandstanding to rally their extreme conservative base and feed an antigovernment narrative. Such bills contradict the majority of public opinion in these states, as well as economic realities and constitutional precedent dating back to the mid-19th century.

ALEC and Americans for Prosperity have been fanning the fire under these efforts to “reclaim” federal public lands. ALEC is a conservative corporate front group funded by fossil-fuel interests such as the Koch brothers and ExxonMobil that develops model legislation for state legislators to introduce in their legislatures, and it has endorsed many of the bills turning public lands over to the states. As the Associated Press reported, “Lawmakers in Utah and Arizona have said the legislation is endorsed by the American Legislative Exchange Council, a group that advocates conservative ideals, and they expect it to eventually be introduced in other Western states.”

That should come as little surprise, considering that one of ALEC’s “model bills” — those that it drafts and develops to shop to various state legislators — is the “Sagebrush Rebellion Act,” which was “designed to establish a mechanism for the transfer of ownership of” non-state lands “from the federal government to the states.”

Further evidence that ALEC is the puppet master behind these performances: Utah State Rep. Ken Ivory (R), who is leading the charge for states to “take back” public lands through his “American Lands Council,” has been presenting the idea of turning federal land over to the states at ALEC conferences such as the one in Salt Lake City last summer. Additionally, Rep. Ivory has been promoting this idea to various state legislatures — he spoke, for example, with Wyoming’s Joint Minerals, Business and Economic Development Interim Committee in October 2012.

Proponents of these bills claim that the states do not receive tax revenue from federal lands and argue that the proceeds from turning the land over to the states to then be further developed can help fund essential state services such as education. They also argue that the federal government promised to turn public lands over to the states at the establishment of their statehoods more than 100 years ago.

This issue brief provides an overview of each state’s attempt to force the turnover of public lands, and then describes why this is not only bad policy that is not in accordance with what westerners actually believe, but is also unconstitutional based on numerous Supreme Court decisions.

Read more

By Tom Kenworthy and Shiva Polefka

Sally Jewell, President Obama’s nominee to head the Department of Interior and former CEO of recreation equipment giant REI, told the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee today during her confirmation hearing that balance is a critical component of managing our nation’s public lands and waters.  She noted that the billions of dollars Americans spend on outdoor recreation:

…underscore the important balance that the Department of the Interior must maintain to ensure that our public lands and waters are managed wisely, using the best science available, to harness their economic potential while preserving their multiple uses for future generations.

Just last month, former Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt urged the Obama administration to put land conservation and energy development on “equal ground” by protecting one acre of public land for every one leased to the oil and gas industry.  To date, the Obama administration has skewed heavily in favor of the oil and gas industry, leasing 2.5 acres of public lands for drilling for every one permanently protected.

Jewell also deftly sidestepped potential controversies over public lands management.  Pressed to defend her previous support for a price on carbon, for example, she stated the Obama administration has “no proposals on the table around this issue.” Nevertheless, she also promised to tap the “vast” experience and skills of the department to help the U.S. better understand and prepare for the impacts of climate change, which will include worsening storms, droughts, sea level rise and ocean acidification associated with greenhouse gas emissions.

She made a point of using her experience as a petroleum engineer with Mobil Oil Corporation to blunt Republican criticism of Obama administration energy policies.  Pushed by Republicans on their claims that the administration has stymied oil and gas production on federal lands, she said that while development on public lands is important, there are “complexities” in the market that have driven “production on private lands to the forefront.” That was a recognition that the shale formations underpinning recent oil and gas booms mostly exist under nonfederal lands, as a new study shows.

After summarizing her career, including 19 years as a banker and CEO of a multi-billion dollar corporation, Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) asked Jewell: “How’d you get appointed by this administration? It sounds like someone a Republican president would appoint.”

Jewell said she strongly supports the president’s “all of the above” energy strategy for public lands and the Outer Continental Shelf. But she also said conservation is a fundamental task of the department, which oversees some hundreds of millions of acres of  “our parks, forests, deserts, rivers and seashores”– America’s “crown jewels,” as she put it.

She called the 1906 Antiquities Act, used by 16 different presidents to create national monuments, “a very important avenue” to expand conservation lands. And she called the Land and Water Conservation Fund that funnels federal dollars to land acquisition efforts across the U.S. “a brilliant piece of legislation” that has been “critical in every county across the country.”

There are a number of controversial issues that Jewell will be responsible for determining over the next few years.  For example, while Shell has temporarily suspended its oil exploration efforts in the Arctic after being overwhelmed by mishaps and safety equipment failures, it and other oil companies are planning offshore drilling in the Arctic in 2014.  Jewell will have to determine whether the basic scientific understanding and oil spill response capacity exist to ensure Arctic Ocean drilling can occur safely.  Many signs indicate that they do not.

Meanwhile, off America’s eastern seaboard, Jewell will oversee the launch of an American offshore wind energy industry, which promises immense economic benefits and will be a vital component to further reducing U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.  While she professed her support of offshore wind at today’s hearing, real advancement of the industry will require her leadership to further streamline the permitting process through the “Smart from the Start” program begun by outgoing Secretary Salazar.

Tom Kenworthy is a Senior Fellow for the Public Lands Team and Shiva Polefka is a Research Associate for the Ocean Program at Center for American Progress Action Fund.

By Jessica Goad

The United States is in the midst of an energy boom, seen for example in the rise of U.S. oil production to its highest level in 20 years. But this hasn’t stopped the oil and gas industry from clamoring for more access to public lands for drilling, and from criticizing the Obama administration for “[putting] in place more obstacles” and setting public lands “off-limits” to development.

For example, Senator David Vitter (R-LA), Ranking Member on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, even went so far as to state, “There’s no disputing the fact that our nation’s domestic energy production on federal lands has been stymied by this administration.”

But a new report released today by the Denver-based Center for Western Priorities called “Follow the Oil” shows that putting the blame on the president and his administration is nothing more than conservative messaging.  Much of today’s boom in oil and natural gas is from unconventional shale “plays,” areas that have only recently been opened through new technology.  And, as the report notes:

Nationwide, 90 percent of all current shale gas plays exist on nonfederal lands, with only 10 percent located on federal lands. Even starker, almost all shale oil resources exist on non-federal lands. Only 7 percent of current shale oil and mixed plays are found on federally-owned lands with the remaining 93 percent on nonfederal lands.

This map shows what those findings look like across the country, and where the industry is “following the oil”:

Additionally, economics are playing a role in driving drilling from public lands to nonfederal lands.  As the report states, “rapid development increased the supply of natural gas, driving down prices, and sending companies searching for other drilling locations and revenue sources.”

In other words, the oil and gas industry has met the enemy, and it is itself.

The release of this report comes at a very opportune time, considering that Sally Jewell, nominee to be the next Secretary of the Interior, will have her confirmation hearing in front of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee this week

And as expected, key members of the committee are preparing to ask her questions about how the administration is stifling drilling on public lands. For example, Energy and Environment Daily reports that Senator John Barrasso (R-WY) will ask Jewell “where she stands on domestic energy development, job creation and federal regulations.”

Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), the Ranking Member on the committee, said she told Jewell in a meeting last week about “resource potential in Alaska, off-shore and in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska and Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and the limitations to access.”

And Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) released a statement after Jewell’s nomination announcement that “The [Interior Department’s] approach has hurt our economy, killed jobs, and prevented states like Utah from generating critical revenue,” so questions about energy on public lands are also likely to come from him.

The report released today shows that, despite all of the questions Jewell may get on drilling on public lands, the industry in the end is “following the oil” to nonfederal lands.

Jessica is the Manager of Research and Outreach for the Public Lands Project at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

By Jessica Goad

The outdoor recreation economy is big business in America. Data released today by the Outdoor Industry Association show the fiscal impacts of recreation in all 50 states, from consumer spending to direct jobs to wages and salaries. The top five states for consumer spending on outdoor recreation are: California ($85.4 billion), Florida ($38.3 billion), New York ($33.8 billion), Texas ($28.7 billion), and Georgia ($23.3 billion).

Additionally, every state in the union benefits from between 28,000 direct jobs (North Dakota) to 732,000 direct jobs (California) in the industry.

In total, outdoor recreation provides $646 billion in economic impacts and 6.1 million direct jobs every year (three times that of the oil and gas industry). These data incorporate the various sectors the outdoor recreation industry relies on, including manufacturing, retail and sales, transportation and warehousing, and accommodation and services near outdoor recreation sites.

A number of western state legislatures are attempting to “reclaim” federal public lands in order to exploit their resources more easily. But Frank Hugelmeyer, CEO of the Outdoor Industry Association, noted that for the industry’s economic influence to increase, political leaders must balance the use of public lands for energy while implementing policies that protect them:

Outdoor recreation is good for the American economy and our future. When we invest in the nation’s network of public lands and waters, we are protecting and enhancing outdoor experiences for the benefit of the thousands of businesses, communities and families whose livelihoods depends on the outdoor recreation economy.

More than 140 million Americans participate in some sort of outdoor activity every year. While the value of such recreation has long been suspected, only in the last several years has it actually been quantified. As Greg Hanscom writes in Grist:

After decades of being blown off as dirty hippie backpacker types, [environmentalists]  can finally declare, with a straight face and data to back them up, that protecting the public lands from oil and gas drilling and other ecological insults is not just the right thing to do — it’s also good for business.

The release of today’s data is also notable because just last week, President Obama nominated Sally Jewell, CEO of outdoor retailer REI, to be his new Secretary of the Interior. Jewell has been an impassioned advocate for the value of this industry, and many expect her to continue to make the business case for conservation when she takes the reins of the Interior Department.

Making strides on permanently protecting public lands will be an important priority for both Congress and the administration over the next few years, especially in the midst of our current energy boom. The Center for American Progress recently released data showing the Obama administration has leased 2.5 more acres to oil and gas companies than it has permanently protected.

The economic case for putting energy and conservation on equal ground has never been clearer, as data like those released today show.

Jessica Goad is the Manager of Research and Outreach for the Public Lands Project at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

By Jessica Goad

A poll released today by Colorado College’s State of the Rockies Project reveals important insight into westerners’ attitudes towards conservation, energy development, and public lands.

A majority of those surveyed believe that protecting public lands is economically significant and are wary of the impacts of oil and gas drilling:

-  91% say “our national parks, forests, monuments, and wildlife areas are an essential part of (my state’s) economy”

-  74% agree that “our national parks, forests, monuments, and wildlife areas help to attract high quality employers and good jobs to (my state)”

-  59% believe “the impact of oil and gas drilling on our land, air and water” is a serious problem

The poll was conducted in six western states (Arizona, Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming) among registered voters.

This year, voters were also asked to respond to claims that there is “too much public land” and proposals to turn lands over to the states or private companies.  While this proposition is dubious constitutionally, it hasn’t stopped legislatures in Arizona, Idaho, New Mexico and Utah from introducing or considering such bills.  But they may want to reconsider after these results:

-  Only 30% of respondents believe that “too much public land” is a serious problem

-  When asked whether they “support or oppose the sale of public lands,” 67% oppose while 27% support

-  79% believe that public lands support the economy while 15% believe they “take land off the tax rolls, cost government to maintain them, and prevent opportunities for logging and oil and gas production that could provide jobs”

The release of this information comes at a very important moment for conservation policy.  Yesterday, President Obama announced he would nominate Sally Jewell, the CEO of outdoor giant REI, to be his new Secretary of the Interior following the departure of current Secretary Ken Salazar.  As President Obama put it, Jewell:

…knows the link between conservation and good jobs.  She knows that there’s no contradiction between being good stewards of the land and our economic progress, that, in fact, those two things need to go hand in hand.

Additionally, earlier this week Secretary Bruce Babbitt called on the Obama administration to put energy development and conservation on equal ground by protecting one acre of public land for every one leased.  He noted that the Obama administration leased more than 6 million acres of public lands over the last four years, while only permanently protecting 2.6 million acres.

There is some indication that the administration is already hearing this message.  For example, the Colorado Bureau of Land Management yesterday threw out a number of controversial oil and gas leases that would have impacted organic farming and outdoor recreation near Paonia, Colorado.

Jessica is the Manager of Research and Outreach for the Public Lands Project at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

By John Podesta

In his inaugural address, President Obama laid out a clear commitment to “our children and future generations,” saying that as a nation we must “maintain our economic vitality and our national treasure—our forests and waterways; our croplands and snowcapped peaks.” This includes the more than 700 million acres of public lands—national parks, monuments, forests and wildernesses—that belong to all Americans.

Indeed, it is one of the great responsibilities and joys of a president to uphold and maintain the uniquely American commitment to conservation. One of my proudest accomplishments from my time with President Clinton was working with Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt to protect the national treasure of our public lands. Together, we helped President Clinton protect more land in the lower 48 states than any president since Teddy Roosevelt.

Since then, however, conservation has all too often taken a back seat to issuing energy leases for development of public lands. That’s why today, Secretary Babbitt introduced a bold new idea for America’s public lands that will put conservation on equal ground with energy development. Secretary Babbitt, in remarks at the National Press Club, proposes that President Obama adopt a simple “One-to-One” principle: for every acre of land leased for energy development, another acre of public land will be protected for future generations.

Both President Clinton and President George H.W. Bush ended their time in office with the number of acres of public land permanently protected comparable to those leased for oil and gas development.  However, the scales have inexorably tipped in favor of the oil and gas industry during the first four years of the Obama administration, with almost two and a half acres leased for every one permanently protected.

Secretary Babbitt’s remarks by no means suggest that energy leases for public lands cease. Instead, we must recognize that any sustainable energy strategy must address conservation as a tool to protect clean air and water, especially in the face of a changing climate. We must balance the economic pressures of today against the need to preserve public spaces and natural resources for the long term. Secretary Babbitt’s proposal is all the more needed in the face of the ongoing oil and gas boom, lest an “all-of-the-above” energy strategy become an “all-of-the-acres-drilled” strategy.

To be sure, we have seen significant, hard-won conservation successes over the past four years. As part of the America’s Great Outdoors initiative, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar traveled the country to hear from local communities and identify conservation priorities.  This level of collaboration takes time and has prepared the administration well to move forward with protecting landscapes with strong local support, starting with honoring the request by New Mexico Senators Udall and Heinrich to designate Rio Grande del Norte as the nation’s next national monument.

The last Congress’ inaction on dozens of wilderness bills introduced by various members—bills that would have protected 5 million acres of public land—should help motivate President Obama to creatively use the executive authorities provided to him.  This is not just about protecting the freedom to roam the wide open country that belongs to all of us.  It is about the 6.1 million American jobs and $646 billion in spending directly supported by the outdoor industry, which depends on protected public lands.  That’s an industry practically twice the size of the oil and gas industry.  That’s part of the reason why in 2011, 100 economists wrote to President Obama stating that they see federal protected public lands as “essential to the West’s economic future.”

Protected public lands are more than just beautiful landscapes.  They are economic drivers that ensure the health and vitality of our great nation are preserved for our children and for future generations, as President Obama noted on Inauguration Day. It’s time to put conservation of these lands back on an equal footing with energy development.

John Podesta is the Chair of the Center for American Progress and the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

Full remarks of Former Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt:

Read more

by Tom Kenworthy

A three-month fundraising sprint has saved a revered slice of the Wyoming Range in central Wyoming from oil and gas drilling.

The Trust for Public Land announced in October it had purchased oil and gas leases on 58,000 acres of the Bridger-Teton National Forest from the company planning on drilling the area, but needed to raise $8.75 million to finalize the deal.

The area under threat – known as both the Noble Basin and Hoback Basin – was featured last July in a video produced by the Center for American Progress. It is a place loved by residents of western Wyoming for its hunting, fishing and other recreation opportunities. Rich in wildlife, the area is important habitat for elk, deer, moose, antelope and other species. It also contains the headwaters of a stretch of the Hoback River that was previously designated by Congress as a wild and scenic river.

Watch a short documentary on the area:

The fundraising success comes as the 2011-2012 session of Congress adjourned after earning the dubious distinction of being the first Congress since 1966 that failed to designate any new federal wilderness areas. The effort to save the Hoback through private fundraising could spur similar efforts, including one in Colorado to protect an area known as the Thompson Divide.

Among the donations that helped save the Hoback was a $1,500 gift of union dues from steelworkers in Rock Springs, WY. Two other large gifts were critical: $4.25 million from Hansjorg Wyss, a noted conservationist and philanthropist who lives in Wilson, Wyoming; and Joe Ricketts, the founder of TD Ameritrade, who has a ranch along the Hoback River near the threatened drilling site.

Will Rogers, president of the Trust for Public Land, hailed the protection of the Hoback Basin, saying, “I can’t think of a better way to start off the New Year. This solution honors the wishes of the people of Wyoming and protects a vital corner of Greater Yellowstone for generations to come.”

Tom Kenworthy is a senior fellow with the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

by Jessica Goad

As Washington struggles to address the country’s growing deficit, a new report released today finds that the federal government has lost its grip on finances in a different way.

An analysis from the Government Accountability Office reveals that the government does not keep track of the amount and value of hardrock minerals – gold, silver, copper, etc. – mined on public lands that are being given away to private companies.

Because the government does not collect royalties on these minerals, it claims there is no reason to keep track of this information:

We found that federal agencies generally do not collect data from hardrock mine operators on the amount and value of hardrock minerals extracted from federal lands because there is no federal royalty that would necessitate doing so.

The reason that companies mining hardrock minerals on public lands are exempt from paying royalties is a law passed almost 150 years ago, called the General Mining Act of 1872.  To this day, it is the law of the land when it comes to extracting hardrock minerals from the federal estate.  This means that mining companies are able to extract taxpayer-owned copper, gold, silver, and other minerals for nearly nothing in exchange.

Other resources extracted from public lands, like oil, coal, and natural gas, are subject to royalties of some sort, generally in the realm of 8-12.5 percent.  And while the federal government receives payments for drilling and mining in other ways like bonus bids and rents, royalties provide a significant amount of money to taxpayers:  GAO found that the total royalties received on coal, oil, and natural gas totaled $11.4 billion in 2011.

Although data on how many hardrock minerals are being extracted from public lands isn’t tracked, there have been some attempts at estimating what this loss to taxpayers looks like.  Using data from 1993, the Department of the Interior approximated that more than $6 billion worth of hardrock minerals was extracted from federal lands in fiscal year 2011.

Today’s report underscores the need  for greater disclosure of what is extracted from public lands, while also reforming the 1872 mining law and requiring companies to pay a royalty on the minerals that they extract.  Democratic members of the House Committee on Natural Resources pointed out that reforming the law could raise $300 million every year.

Reforming outdated policies like the 1872 mining law and subsidies for oil companies in order to help address the deficit are also important in the context of other extreme policies that have been proposed.  For example, Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT) and Rep. Steve Pearce (R-NM) recently called for selling off or trading public lands in order to reduce the deficit.

As Rep. Raul Grijalva, who requested the report along with Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM), put it:  “Everybody’s penny-pinching, and here’s a penny we haven’t pinched.”

Jessica is the Manager of Research and Outreach for the Public Lands Project at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

by Jessica Goad, Michael Conathan, and Christy Goldfuss

On January 2, 2013 a set of large, across-the-board spending cuts to nearly all federal agencies is set to take place in accordance with the Budget Control Act 2011. These massive slashes—known as the “fiscal showdown” or “sequestration”—are a direct result of conservatives in Congress holding the American economy hostage in order to safeguard tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans. While much has been written and said about what this would do to the economy, health care, national security, and other major domestic programs, one relatively unexplored issue is the effect it would have on some of America’s most treasured assets: our oceans and public lands.

The fiscal showdown is the latest in a series of budget conflicts that have come to a head over the last year. Because the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction—the “super committee”—was unable to come to an agreement on how to address the deficit, massive, automatic cuts to federal programs will take place unless Congress agrees by year’s end on an alternative set of budgetary measures to replace sequestration. If they fail to do so, federal spending will be automatically slashed by $1.2 trillion from 2013 through 2021, with approximately $109 billion in cuts coming in fiscal year 2013.

Despite the fact that Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) offered a plan with $800 billion in new revenue, he has not outlined any specific or realistic path to get there and wants to lower tax rates—a plan that heads in the wrong direction. As a result, the country is now in a precarious situation. Only an eleventh-hour deal will prevent cuts that former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates—who served under both President George W. Bush and President Barack Obama—has said would have a “catastrophic effect” on national security. Sequestration’s impacts could be equally calamitous for the management of federal programs that safeguard American lives, fuel our economy, and provide treasured sites for rest and recreation.

Congressional Republicans are beginning to wake up to the reality that our financial woes cannot be solved simply by slashing spending—additional sources of revenue must be part of the equation. Several conservatives have recently broken ranks from GOP taxation task-master, lobbyist Grover Norquist, who is most known for the pledge he convinced many in Congress to sign promising to reject any tax increases. Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) recently suggested that he is not “obligated” to honor the pledge he made with Norquist to oppose tax increases.

This is good news for the American people who enjoy government services—everything from a strong military to the interstate highway system to public education—because it means that an honest conversation about addressing the deficit that includes both new revenues and cuts can move forward. But unless more conservatives join this trend, sequestration will be inevitable, in which case we are going to have to start making do without some of these vital services we now consider fundamental to our daily lives.

In this issue brief, we examine seven key areas where federal land and ocean management agencies, such as the Department of the Interior and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, make critical investments on which Americans have come to depend and what cutting these agencies might mean, including:

Read more