Federal Land Action Group launched
There’s a new push from some of the western members of Congress to de-federalize parts of the West. Here’s today’s press release from Congressman Bishop and Stewart on the launching of the Federal Land Action Group:
Apr 28, 2015Press Release
WASHINGTON — Today, Representatives Chris Stewart (R-Utah) and Rob Bishop (R-Utah) launched the Federal Land Action Group, a congressional team that will develop a legislative framework for transferring public lands to local ownership and control.
This Group, chaired by Rep. Stewart, will build on the work started by Utah and other states in recent years. “The federal government has been a lousy landlord for western states and we simply think the states can do it better,” Stewart said. “If we want healthier forests, better access to public lands, more consistent funding for public education and more reliable energy development, it makes sense to have local control.”
Rep. Bishop, Chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, said, “This group will explore legal and historical background in order to determine the best congressional action needed to return these lands back to the rightful owners. We have assembled a strong team of lawmakers, and I look forward to formulating a plan that reminds the federal government it should leave the job of land management to those who know best.”
The Federal Land Action Group will hold a series of forums with experts on public lands policy, with the goal of introducing transfer legislation.
Other members of the Group include Representatives Mark Amodei (R-Nev.), Diane Black (R-Tenn.), Jeff Duncan (R-S.C.), Cresent Hardy (R-Nev.), and Cynthia Lummis (R-WY).
A lot of this makes sense. As described in the link below from the American Lands Council, the feds have historically done a lousy job, when compared in the states, in managing public lands:
Why the Difference? Click Here
This could be an effort worth watching.
What to read next
PLF asks the U.S. Supreme Court to rule that there is no “legislative exception” to the unconstitutional conditions doctrine
It seems that some governments and courts prefer to treat Supreme Court precedent as an option, rather than a requirement. The Supreme Court has ruled—twice—that it’s unconstitutional for government to … ›