Discussion:
Congress takes Federal Land usage away from ranchers and farmers
Add Reply
wolfbat359
2017-03-07 05:54:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Seems Congress don't want to have local farmers and ranchers to have a say on how Federal Lands near them are administrated. Oil and Gas people to run wild there!

http://www.gjsentinel.com/opinion/articles/blm-planning-rule-gives-locals-a-voice


BLM planning rule gives locals a voice

By Guest Columnist
Sunday, March 5, 2017

By Chuck McAfee

Late last year, the federal Bureau of Land Management issued a new and long overdue rule—– called Planning 2.0 — that gave a wider range of voices the opportunity to weigh in on how federal lands can be used and developed for decades to come.

Planning 2.0 was grounded by an idea at the heart of American democracy: that people most affected by public policy decisions deserve to be heard.

Elected officials in many Western states have, nevertheless, fought Planning 2.0, often in stark opposition to a wide range of local landowners, farmers, businesses and others who have the biggest stake in how BLM lands are used.

Also, emboldened by the results of last fall’s elections, Republican leaders in the U.S. House of Representatives led an aggressive effort to kill Planning 2.0. They turned to an obscure, and relatively untested federal law called the Congressional Review Act that they claim allows them to roll back regulations within 60 legislative days of their enactment. Using CRA, the House voted against the Planning 2.0 in early February, and now the fate of the rule is the hands of the U.S. Senate.

I live on a 2,300-acre southwest Colorado farm that has been in my family for more than 100 years, and I’m one of those people who, if Planning 2.0 is dismantled, will essentially have no input into how nearby federal lands should be managed.

I acutely understand the stakes because a three-person board of commissioners for Montezuma County, where I live, has fiercely opposed Planning 2.0. As they see it, only the commissioners should have input into BLM matters and scrutiny of decisions about federal land development. They say that Planning 2.0 gives too much power to what they often call “special interest” voices.

That was their position throughout a nearly two-year local debate about whether the BLM should approve a master leasing plan for oil and gas development on federal lands in Montezuma County and neighboring areas.

It didn’t matter to the commissioners that, at most of the public hearings on this issue, people like me who supported broader community input outnumbered others by 10 to 1. And the commissioners, who have long opposed reasonable limits to oil and gas operations, seem oblivious to our concerns that the proliferation of drilling in our area (there are currently more than 23,000 gas wells in southwest Colorado and northern New Mexico) has threated our local environment.

A methane cloud the size of the state of Delaware now hovers over the San Juan Basin in four states including Colorado and can be seen from space. People living here can smell the gas in the air, and the constant haze from methane and other pollutants is unmistakable. I’m 75 years old and can remember, decades ago, seeing from my window a breathtaking rock formation 70 miles away called Shiprock in New Mexico. Today, Shiprock has mostly disappeared from my view behind the haze. ....
rumpelstiltskin
2017-03-07 16:35:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 6 Mar 2017 21:54:47 -0800 (PST), wolfbat359
Post by wolfbat359
Seems Congress don't want to have local farmers and ranchers to have a say on how Federal Lands near them are administrated. Oil and Gas people to run wild there!
http://www.gjsentinel.com/opinion/articles/blm-planning-rule-gives-locals-a-voice
BLM planning rule gives locals a voice
By Guest Columnist
Sunday, March 5, 2017
By Chuck McAfee
Late last year, the federal Bureau of Land Management
Thanks for indicating early what "BLM" stands for.
Acronym-challenged that I am, when I first saw it,
all I could think of was "bowel movement".
Post by wolfbat359
issued a new and long overdue rule—– called Planning 2.0 — that gave a wider range of voices the opportunity to weigh in on how federal lands can be used and developed for decades to come.
Planning 2.0 was grounded by an idea at the heart of American democracy: that people most affected by public policy decisions deserve to be heard.
Elected officials in many Western states have, nevertheless, fought Planning 2.0, often in stark opposition to a wide range of local landowners, farmers, businesses and others who have the biggest stake in how BLM lands are used.
Also, emboldened by the results of last fall’s elections, Republican leaders in the U.S. House of Representatives led an aggressive effort to kill Planning 2.0. They turned to an obscure, and relatively untested federal law called the Congressional Review Act that they claim allows them to roll back regulations within 60 legislative days of their enactment. Using CRA, the House voted against the Planning 2.0 in early February, and now the fate of the rule is the hands of the U.S. Senate.
I live on a 2,300-acre southwest Colorado farm that has been in my family for more than 100 years, and I’m one of those people who, if Planning 2.0 is dismantled, will essentially have no input into how nearby federal lands should be managed.
I acutely understand the stakes because a three-person board of commissioners for Montezuma County, where I live, has fiercely opposed Planning 2.0. As they see it, only the commissioners should have input into BLM matters and scrutiny of decisions about federal land development. They say that Planning 2.0 gives too much power to what they often call “special interest” voices.
That was their position throughout a nearly two-year local debate about whether the BLM should approve a master leasing plan for oil and gas development on federal lands in Montezuma County and neighboring areas.
It didn’t matter to the commissioners that, at most of the public hearings on this issue, people like me who supported broader community input outnumbered others by 10 to 1. And the commissioners, who have long opposed reasonable limits to oil and gas operations, seem oblivious to our concerns that the proliferation of drilling in our area (there are currently more than 23,000 gas wells in southwest Colorado and northern New Mexico) has threated our local environment.
A methane cloud the size of the state of Delaware now hovers over the San Juan Basin in four states including Colorado and can be seen from space. People living here can smell the gas in the air, and the constant haze from methane and other pollutants is unmistakable. I’m 75 years old and can remember, decades ago, seeing from my window a breathtaking rock formation 70 miles away called Shiprock in New Mexico. Today, Shiprock has mostly disappeared from my view behind the haze. ....
It looks like the planet is doomed. It's been suggested that the
reason our radio signal searches for intelligent life elsewhere in
the universe have not been successful so far is that by the time
a civilization becomes capable of radio transmission that could
be detected by civilizations around other stars, that civilization
only has a couple of hundred years to go before it inevitably
destroys itself. In the vastness of time, therefore, it would be
highly improbably that two civilizations close enough to each
other for detection would come to fruition together during the
brief interval between the onset of technology and self-
destruction.
Emily
2017-03-08 15:26:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Thanks for indicating early what "BLM" stands for.
Acronym-challenged that I am, when I first saw it,
all I could think of was "bowel movement".
Bureau of Land Management was firmly stuck in my mind for a long time
and when the Black Lives Matter movement got going I would read
something about BLM having a protest or something and initially always
wondered what the Bureau of Land Management was doing involved in
whatever it was.
rumpelstiltskin
2017-03-08 18:59:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Emily
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Thanks for indicating early what "BLM" stands for.
Acronym-challenged that I am, when I first saw it,
all I could think of was "bowel movement".
Bureau of Land Management was firmly stuck in my mind for a long time
and when the Black Lives Matter movement got going I would read
something about BLM having a protest or something and initially always
wondered what the Bureau of Land Management was doing involved in
whatever it was.
Oh! As if acronyms weren't already bad enough, now we have
ambiguous acronyms too! I still can't help thinking "bowel
movement" first when I see "BLM", but that may have something
do with my intense dislike of acronyms.

"Ambigunyms" -- hmmm.

Loading...