by Jessica Goad

Local regulation of oil and gas drilling was thrust into the spotlight this election when Longmont, Colorado banned drilling within its city limits.  The decision was closely watched by the energy industry because of its implications for other communities across the country.

As the head of the Western Energy Alliance, an industry group against the ban put it, “We can’t afford that particular issue to get out of the barn at Longmont.”

Which is why recent comments from Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA) are noteworthy. Landrieu, one of the biggest drilling advocates in Congress, has taken $940,174 in campaign contributions from the oil and gas industry since 1996. However, at a forum sponsored by America’s Natural Gas Alliance, Landrieu said that the industry should respect local communities and understand that some places should be set off-limits to drilling:

There should be drilling zones and non-drilling zones. Just because, you know, if there was gold in the National Mall, the largest gold mine in the world, we would not allow mining in the Mall.  So sometimes I think the industry—as much as I’m an advocate for it—can get a little over its heels on this.

I don’t know what, again, the issues are, but I would not be so quick to condemn that town for making that decision. Although I realize the governor’s made a statement, and this and that.  But I think we do have to be sensitive to local land use issues.  And if we all find that balance—there’s plenty of land, trust me, in the United States of America.  There are plenty of places that you can drill, you don’t have to drill on every square inch of land in every situation.  And I think we have to be a lot smarter about where we drill, how we drill.

Watch it:

Read more

by Jessica Goad

A report released today by the economic consulting firm Headwaters Economics adds to the growing body of evidence that protecting public lands is good for the economy and jobs.

“West is Best:  How Public Lands in the West Create a Competitive Economic Advantage,” outlines how public lands in the American West allow the region to boast a higher quality of life, thus attracting entrepreneurs who help the region experience higher growth rates in employment, population, and personal income compared to the rest of the country as a whole.

The report discusses in detail how the West’s economy has been changing rapidly over the last few decades, shifting from one based upon resource extraction to one primarily supported by service industries like health care, technology, and finance.

Companies in these highly-competitive service sectors (where most of the West’s job growth has been) are constantly looking to attract new talent and workers by advertising one of the region’s most important competitive advantages: that it has a higher quality of life because it offers places to play like national parks, monuments, and wilderness areas.

As one CEO put it:

We actively leverage our location and the outdoors to attract and retain our employees…For our employees, taking time to get outdoors is re-energizing. It builds passion and commitment, and is critical to creativity and innovation—this is where the best work happens. It’s also a competitive edge for us since not all companies work this way.

The West has seen incredible growth in terms of jobs; between 1970 and 2010, employment grew by 152 percent compared to only 78 percent in the rest of the country.  Both population and personal income growth mirror this trend, as seen in the chart below:

The authors of the report note: “As the West’s economy shifts toward a knowledge-based economy, new research shows that protected federal public lands support faster rates of job growth and are correlated with higher levels of per capita income.”

A number of previous studies have shown how protected public lands are good for the economy.  Last spring, Headwaters Economics determined that jobs in Western non-metro counties containing significant amounts of protected public lands increased by more than 300 percent over the last 40 years, compared to just 80 percent for counties without any protected places.

Additionally, the Small Business Majority recently conducted a poll in which small business owners agreed that creating new national parks and monuments would have a positive impact on jobs and the economy by a 4-1 margin.  And, a study from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service determined that in many regions of the U.S. home values are higher when they are sited closer to wildlife refuge.

And yet not all policymakers are heeding the advice of such analyses. For example, on Monday, Republicans Rob Bishop (UT) and Steve Pearce (NM) sent a letter to House Speaker John Boehner calling for the selling off or transferring of public lands (“divesting the federal government of its vast landholdings”) as a way to reduce the deficit. And Bishop has previously stated that national monuments and wilderness areas are a “detriment” to local economies.

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 looming budget crisis and “sequestration” are currently the talk of the town in Washington, D.C.  But often lost in these discussions are the real impacts that Americans will feel if important government programs are cut.

For public lands, January’s massive and automatic budget cuts be will felt strongly in our national parks, some of which could even be closed if a budget deal is not reached.

That’s the message being delivered by the National Parks Conservation Association, a group dedicated to advocacy on behalf of America’s 398 national parks units.  This week, the group is launching an online and print ad campaign to warn lawmakers that slashing the budget of the National Park Service could mean:

…some level of closure at virtually every national park in the system, including reductions in park hours or seasons, closures of campgrounds or visitor’s centers, and even the outright closure of many parks in the next year. And it could eliminate as many as 9,000 rangers who serve the public, protect our parks, and keep the parks running.

NPCA calculates that the cuts could be equivalent to closing as many as 200 national park units.

Like other non-defense agencies, the National Park Service faces cuts under automatic budget sequestration at the beginning of January.  The White House Office of Management and Budget noted that many agencies, including the park service, will see an 8.2 percent cut in funding to critical programs.  This translates to a $218 million cut for national parks in fiscal year 2013.

Slashing this budget so dramatically could be devastating to the park service.  According to OMB, the majority of cuts are to the park operations account, which funds priorities such as law enforcement, visitor education, campground maintenance, etc.  And on top of this, the park service already faces a smaller budget and large maintenance backlog.

While it takes funding to manage national parks, it is important to note the enormous return on investment that they bring.  In addition to preserving our natural and cultural heritage, national parks contributed $31 billion in 2011 and supported 258,000 jobs.  Some have estimated that for every $1 spent on national parks, $4 in economic impacts are generated.

Recent history has shown that voters are willing to spend money on conservation.  Indeed, in the 2012 election, voters in 21 states approved ballot measures that will provide $767 million for parks and conservation.  Since the American public is willing to tax itself for the purpose of conservation, lawmakers should find a balanced approach to the budget crisis that includes revenue increases so as to continue funding important government priorities like national parks.

Whether or not Congressional leaders and the White House reach a budget deal remains to be seen. But it’s certain that we’ll see major changes at our national parks very soon if a deal is not reached.

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

by Tom Kenworthy

The Department of Interior’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has completed its final environmental review of the amount of federal land designated for research and development of oil shale and tar sands in Colorado, Wyoming and Utah.

The final programmatic environmental impact statement (PEIS) published late last week would make almost 700,000 acres in the three states available for research and development of oil shale, and another 130,000 acres in Utah available for potential leasing and development of tar sands.

That is a significant reduction from actions taken in the final days of the Bush administration that would have expedited commercial development for oil shale on nearly 2 million acres in the three states. But it is more expansive than the Obama administration’s draft environmental review completed last February, which allocated about 462,000 acres for oil shale and 91,000 acres for tar sands.

Sometimes confused with shale oil – actual crude oil trapped in sedimentary rock – oil shale is a rock that contains kerogen, an organic material produces hydrocarbons when heated at high temperatures. Tar sands are sedimentary deposits that contain bitumen, a hydrocarbon that can be refined into oil. They are one of the dirtiest and most environmentally destructive fossil fuels.

The BLM’s plan, which Sen. Mark Udall (D-CO) said was a more “measured” approach to providing land for these resources, excludes environmentally sensitive areas, including those with wilderness characteristics and habitat for sage grouse.

The BLM directive would first open lands for what are known as research, demonstration and development leases and set certain requirements before they could become full commercial development leases.

David Abelson, who works on oil shale issues for Western Resource Advocates, told E&E the decision is “mixed” – requiring research before commercial development, but still opening vast tracts of federal lands for potential development.

And if one takes the International Energy Agency’s new World Energy Outlook seriously, developing these extremely dirty resources at all is a poor use of land. According to the IEA, we need to keep two thirds of fossil fuel resources in the ground in order to keep global temperature rise below 2 degrees C.

The local environmental impact is also substantial. Oil shale is a longstanding pipe dream of western energy developers, who despite considerable effort, have yet to prove it is commercially viable. According to a Government Accounting Office study and other reports, production could severely stress western water supplies already strained by population growth and climate change. In addition, a recent report by Western Resource Advocates predicts that development of oil shale would exacerbate air pollution problems in the West.

Tom Kenworthy is a Senior Fellow with the Center for American Progress Action Fund

by Tom Kenworthy

The presidential and congressional elections of last week brought good news for those who value sensible land conservation policies. But there was more good news on the state and local levels as well.

Even in a time of fiscal constraints, voters in 21 states gave overwhelming approval to ballot measures providing some $767 million for new parks, open space, water quality protections and the preservation of farms and ranches, according to The Trust for Public Land.

Of the 57 measures that went to the voters on election day last week, 46 won — a success rate of 81%.

“From Maine to Texas to San Francisco, we saw voters across the political spectrum say yes to taxes and spending for conservation which helps their communities,” noted the trust’s president Will Rogers.

Examples:

• By a 3-1 margin Alabama voters approved a 20-year extension of the state’s Forever Wild land conservation initiative that will pump another $300 million into land protection efforts
• In Salt Lake County, Utah, a $47 million bond to fund regional trails and parks was endorsed by 56 percent of voters.

• Two thirds of Houston’s voters approved a $166 million bond to finish a system of bayou greenways.

• In El Paso, Texas, three out of four voters chose to support a $245 million bond, part of which will fund park improvements and land purchases.

Even as some congressional Republicans have stymied federal land conservation efforts in recent years, support for local and state programs has been extraordinarily resilient.

The Trust for Public Land has been tracking those campaigns since 1988, and reports that voters at the local and state levels have approved expenditures more than 75% of the time over more than two decades. All told, they have taxed themselves to the tune of more than $58 billion because they know that open space and parks improve their quality of life and are an important contribution to healthy economies.

Tom Kenworthy is a Senior Fellow with the Center for American Progress Action Fund

By Jessica Goad, Christy Goldfuss, and Tom Kenworthy

In an election where public lands played a surprisingly prominent role, last night’s results were a decisive show of support for protecting lands and the leaders that champion their value.

Public lands issues surfaced in a number of key races and referenda, particularly in the West. In some respects, this election can be seen as an endorsement of the very philosophy behind our 700 million acres of public lands — that they are open to and managed for all of us, not just the wealthy few.  Here’s how the subject played out in Arizona, Montana, New Mexico, and across the U.S.

Nationally

Governor Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama had vast differences in their perspectives on public lands issues. Romney’s plan to turn decisions about energy development on public lands over to the states brought significant criticism, and was a major topic of debate on lands issues.  Various constituencies came out against the proposal, including sportsmen (one columnist noted that “fewer proposals could be more frightening” for hunters and anglers) and the industry itself (the International Association of Drilling Contractors said the plan would cause operators to “tear their hair out.”)

And as this online video highlights, Romney botched a response to a question about why public lands exist, telling told the Reno Gazette-Journal in February that he doesn’t know “what [their] purpose is”:

Arizona

It is perhaps no surprise that in Arizona, the Grand Canyon was the central public lands issue in the election.  Proposition 120, a ballot measure that would give Arizona “sovereign and exclusive authority and jurisdiction” the land, air, water, and wildlife within its boundaries, was resoundingly defeated by a 2-1 margin.   This measure — the embodiment of a radical push for state’s rights that materialized with the Tea Party — would have included turning the Grand Canyon over to the state.

Additionally, public lands rose to the surface in the Arizona Senate race, which pitted Representative Jeff Flake (R) against Richard Carmona (D).  Flake — a former uranium industry lobbyist — prioritized mining around the Grand Canyon during his time as a representative, and even as late as October was pushing for the development of these “prime mining lands.”  In response, the League of Conservation Voters and Majority PAC dropped $1.3 million in television ads against Flake, focusing exclusively on his work to undermine protections for the Grand Canyon.

Watch one of them:

Read more

by Jessica Goad

Arizona has become ground zero for the ideological fight against public lands and national parks during the 2012 election.  This is due to a combination of factors, including a Senate race featuring a former uranium industry lobbyist who has led the fight to mine around the Grand Canyon, a state ballot measure that would turn all federal public lands over to the state, and Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s energy plan that would make it easier to mine and drill on public lands.

First, the Grand Canyon has played an important role in the Arizona Senate race between Richard Carmona (D) and Jeff Flake (R).  Flake has led the fight in Congress to roll back a ban on new uranium mining around the canyon, and at one point his efforts were referred to as “the Flake earmark for the mining industry.”

Just this past Saturday, Flake — who was once a lobbyist for an African uranium mine with ties to Iran — continued to attack the Grand Canyon, and referred to the lands around it as “prime mining lands” when he gave the weekly Republican address:

If Arizona is in any way a microcosm for regulatory overreaches — and I think it is — then it is no wonder that the economy is struggling. Whether it’s locking up prime mining lands in northern Arizona to responsible mining…there seems no end to the regulatory appetite of this administration.

Watch it:

The League of Conservation voters has been running ads against Flake on this very issue:

Additionally, Proposition 120 will be on Arizona’s ballot on November 6^th.  This measure would add language to the state constitution, giving Arizona “sovereign and exclusive authority and jurisdiction” over natural resources within its boundaries including air, water, wildlife, and public lands (including the Grand Canyon).  It would also, according to legislative analysis, “repeal Arizona’s disclaimer of all right and title to public lands within the state,” an action which one legal expert says is “almost certainly unconstitutional.”

As Alex Seitz-Wald of Salon further explained this morning:

Read more