Governors of Western states give mixed reactions to proposed federal land sell-off
SANTA FE, N.M. (AP) — A Republican-sponsored proposal before Congress to mandate the sale of federal public lands received a mixed reception Monday from the governors of Western states.
A budget proposal from Utah Republican Sen. Mike Lee would mandate the sale of more than 2 million acres of federal lands to state or other entities. It was included recently in a draft provision of the GOP's sweeping tax cut package.
At a summit Monday of Western state governors, New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham said the approach is problematic in New Mexico because of the close relationship residents have with those public lands.
'I'm open' to the idea, said Lujan Grisham, a second-term Democratic governor and former congresswoman. 'Except here.'
'Our public lands, we have a very strong relationship with the openness, and they belong to all of us,' said Lujan Grisham, who was announcing written recommendations Monday on affordable housing strategies from the Western Governors' Association. 'And selling that to the private sector without a process, without putting New Mexicans first, is, for at least for me as a governor, going to be problematic.'
Interior Department Secretary Doug Burgum is among the leaders from several federal agencies scheduled to attend the meeting of the association on Monday and Tuesday. Conservation groups vowed to stage public protests over plans to cede public land to development.
Wyoming Gov. Mark Gordon voiced qualified support for plans to tap federal land for development.
'On a piece-by-piece basis where states have the opportunity to craft policies that make sense … we can actually allow for some responsible growth in areas with communities that are landlocked at this point,' he told a news conference outside the Georgia O'Keeffe Museum in downtown Santa Fe. 'There may be value there.'
Lee has said federal land sales under his proposal would target 'isolated parcels' that could be used for housing or infrastructure, and would not include national parks, national monuments or wilderness.
Land in 11 Western states from Alaska to New Mexico would be eligible for sale. Montana was carved out of the proposal after its lawmakers objected.
In some states, such as Utah and Nevada, the government controls the vast majority of lands, protecting them from potential exploitation but hindering growth.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Winnipeg Free Press
41 minutes ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Trump administration plans to rescind rule blocking logging on national forest lands
SANTA FE, N.M. (AP) — The Trump administration plans to rescind a nearly quarter-century-old rule that blocked logging on national forest lands, Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins announced Monday. The so-called roadless rule adopted in the last days of Bill Clinton's presidency in 2001 long has chafed Republican lawmakers, especially in the West where national forests sprawl across vast, mountainous terrain and the logging industry has waned. The roadless rule impeded road construction and 'responsible timber production' that would have helped reduce the risk of major wildfires, Rollins said at the annual meeting of the Western Governors Association. 'This move opens a new era of consistency and sustainability for our nation's forests,' Rollins said. The rule affected 30% of national forest lands nationwide, or about 59 million acres (24 million hectares), according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the agency over the Forest Service. State roadless-area rules in Idaho and Colorado supersede the boundaries of the 2001 roadless rule, according to the USDA, meaning not all national forest land would be affected by a recission. The announcement came amid talk of selling off federal lands, an idea that received a mixed reception from governors at the same meeting. In Alaska, home to the country's largest national forest, the Tongass, the roadless rule has long been a focus of litigation, with state political leaders supporting an exemption to the rule that they argue impedes economic opportunities. During the latter part of President Donald Trump's first term, the federal government lifted restrictions on logging and road-building in the Tongass, something the Biden administration later reversed. Wednesdays Columnist Jen Zoratti looks at what's next in arts, life and pop culture. Trump in January called for reverting to the policy from his first term as part of an Alaska-specific executive order aimed at boosting oil and gas development, mining and logging in the state. The Tongass is a temperate rainforest of glaciers and rugged coastal islands. It provides habitat to wildlife such as bears, wolves, salmon and bald eagles. Environmental groups, who want to keep restrictions on logging and road-building in place for the Tongass, criticized the possibility of rolling back the protections. 'Any attempt to revoke it is an attack on the air and water we breathe and drink, abundant recreational opportunities which millions of people enjoy each year, havens for wildlife and critical buffers for communities threatened by increasingly severe wildfire seasons,' Josh Hicks, conservation campaigns director at The Wilderness Society, said in a statement of USDA's plans. ___ Bohrer reported from Juneau, Alaska. Mead Gruver in Cheyenne, Wyoming, contributed to this report.
Winnipeg Free Press
42 minutes ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
The Republican attempt to discourage Trump lawsuits has hit a big obstacle
WASHINGTON (AP) — Republicans have hit a roadblock in an effort that could deter nonprofits, individuals and other potential litigants from filing lawsuits to block President Donald Trump over his executive actions. As Trump faces lawsuits nationwide, GOP lawmakers had sought to bar federal courts from issuing temporary restraining orders or preliminary injunctions against the federal government unless the plaintiffs post what in many cases would be a massive financial bond at the beginning of the case. The proposal was included in the Senate version of Trump's massive tax and immigration bill, but ran into trouble with the Senate parliamentarian, who said it violates the chamber's rules. It is now unlikely to be in the final package. Federal judges can already require plaintiffs to post security bonds, but such funds are commonly waived in public interest cases. The GOP proposal would make the payment of the financial bond a requirement before a judge could make a ruling, which critics said would have a chilling effect on potential litigants who wouldn't have the resources to comply. Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer hailed the parliamentarian's ruling in a press statement and called the GOP effort 'nothing short of an assault on the system of checks and balances that has anchored the nation since it's founding.' 'But Senate Democrats stopped them cold,' Schumer said. Lawmakers are running scores of provisions by the Senate parliamentarian's office to ensure they fit with the chamber's rules for inclusion in a reconciliation bill. The recommendations from Elizabeth MacDonough will have a major impact on the final version of the legislation. On Friday, she determined that a proposal to shift some food stamps costs from the federal government to states would violate the chamber's rules. But some of the most difficult questions are still to come as Republicans hope to get a bill passed and on Trump's desk to be signed into law before July 4th. Republicans could still seek to include the judiciary provision in the bill, but it would likely be challenged and subject to a separate vote in which the provision would need 60 votes to remain. The parliamentarian's advice, while not binding, is generally followed by the Senate. Republicans and the White House have been highly critical of some of the court rulings blocking various Trump orders on immigration, education and voting. The courts have agreed to block the president in a number of cases, and the administration is seeking appeals as well. In April, the House voted to limit the scope of injunctive relief ordered by a district judge to those parties before the court, rather than applying the relief nationally. But that bill is unlikely to advance in the Senate since it would need 60 votes to advance. That's left Republicans looking for other avenues to blunt the court orders. 'We are experiencing a constitutional crisis, a judicial coup d'etat,' Rep. Bob Onder, R-Mo., said during the House debate.
Winnipeg Free Press
an hour ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Oil sells off as traders calmly look beyond the bombs in the Middle East
NEW YORK (AP) — If oil prices are any measure, Iran just flinched. The price of oil tumbled Monday afternoon in an historical move as traders bet that Iran's decision to bomb a U.S. base in Qatar signals it is not planning to do the one thing that could really hurt America: Shut down the flow of oil by attacking crude shipments. 'When the response comes and it is muted, oil drops,' said Tom Kloza, chief market strategist at consultancy Turner Mason & Co, calling the limited Iran response far short of what many traders feared. 'This rivals some of the historic selloffs.' There's still plenty Iran could do to push prices back up, and the markets could be getting it all wrong, But oil analysts say there are plenty of reasons fear has receded. Scary then calm The price of West Texas Intermediate, the U.S. benchmark, fell 7.2% to $68.51 per barrel on Monday after Iran announced a missile attack on Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, which the U.S. military uses. Traders were relieved because Iran said it had matched the number of bombs dropped by the U.S. on Iranian nuclear sites this weekend, a possible sign of a desire to deescalate the conflict. Markets were initially nervous as oil futures opened for trading Sunday. The price of Brent crude jumped 4% as traders anxiously watched the Strait of Hormuz, a waterway on Iran's southern border that legislators in Tehran were demanding be closed in retaliation. That would have walloped the global economy because much of world's crude and liquified gas passes through it. The drop in oil Monday brings the price back to where it was before fighting between Iran and Israel began over a week ago, when a barrel of U.S. crude was just above $68. That's good news for President Donald Trump who wants the Federal Reserve to stop worrying about inflation and start cutting interest rates. It's also good for motorists this summer if the trend holds. Drivers were already paying higher prices at the pump before the U.S. attack. The average price nationwide is $3.18 per gallon, according to GasBuddy surveys, about 10 cents more than two weeks ago. 'It would be suicidal' The question now is will Tehran continue to keep oil flowing. Some traders were doubtful Iran would try to close the Strait of Hormuz even before its limited attack Monday. They noted that much of country's own crude passes through the waterway — 1.5 million barrels a day — and oil is a big revenue generator for the country that they would be loath to disrupt. 'It's a silly notion that the Iranians would look to do that,' said Kloza. 'I've been covering oil for 50 years and we've never seen the Strait of Hormuz compromised.' Asked about the prospect of a shutdown on NBC's 'Meet the Press' Sunday, Vice President J.D. Vance put it more simply: 'I think that would be suicidal.' At current oil prices, Tehran receives roughly $40 billion in revenue annually from oil transiting the same waters. That is a tenth of what the entire of country produces in goods and services. Yes, but Andy Lipow, an Houston based oil analyst, says history suggests Iran won't disrupt its own flow of oil, but that countries, like people, don't always act in their economic interests. 'The question for the oil markets is, 'Is his time different?',' he said. 'You might have an emotional decision.' He notes also that Iran has other ways to push oil higher without completely closing off the waterway. Iran could jam navigational devices, slowing transit, or drop mines in the water, forcing the U.S. Navy to do more escorts. Or it could bomb a tanker, he said, sending the premiums that shippers need to pay insurers sky high. Monday Mornings The latest local business news and a lookahead to the coming week. Big gamble If traders are wrong and oil shoots back up, the impact could be widely felt. A surge in oil prices would come at a bad time. Trump insists that the inflation scare is largely over, but many economists think higher prices are still coming because the full impact of his tariffs are only now beginning to show up on everyday goods. Trump is clearly aware things could change fast. 'To The Department of Energy: DRILL, BABY, DRILL!!! And I mean NOW!!!' he wrote on Truth Social Monday, adding. 'EVERYONE, KEEP OIL PRICES DOWN. I'M WATCHING!'
