Interesting post, Todd.  I, too, consider myself to be an environmentalist and I have spent many wonderful family vacations camping in both state and federal wilderness areas and will continue to do so.  Having said this, though, I think I have some very serious concerns about this particular piece of legislation and I think in the end it is going to be both dangerous and expensive in its application.

For instance, you said, "There is also some speculation as to how this bill will affect a few private property owners whose land currently overlaps these new regions."  I think it's very wrong to dismiss out of hand the property rights of "a few private property owners".  

I have an example of this from my own family.  A number of years ago (actually, a lot of years ago) my parents became aware of a proposed new development in the area of Orlando, FL that was to be called Walt Disney World.  Correctly realizing the possible potential for growth in the area, my parents, and many others bought up some vacant land in the general vicinity of the development.  Sure enough, after only a couple of years, the environmentalists took notice and had the lands declared as environmentally sensitive and had the land declared "unbuildable".  Sound familiar?  

Notice that they didn't actually take the land and reimburse the landowners and they paid no compensation of any kind.  They just declared that anyone who owned it couldn't use it. Obviously, the value of the land went to zero virtually overnight.  My parents and others as well had no choice but to walk away from what should have been their personal property.  

My point is, when I see phrases like this in the discussion I envision regular American citizens who have invested their time, money and effort into something and have lost it overnight through no fault of their own.  It seems to me that if we don't stand up and fight for their rights then there won't be anyone left to fight for our rights when our own government wants to come after us on some other issue.  We are going to stand or fall together in my opinion.

The other point of concern I have is the part about "funds to stock the San Joaquin River with salmon."  I read the AP article you linked and there seems to be a bit more here than meets the eye.  The article states that, "In addition to wilderness protection, the bill resolves several long-standing disputes over water rights, including implementation of a 2006 legal settlement to restore the San Joaquin River in California, bringing water and salmon back to a now-dry stretch of the waterway."

Wow!  In addition to restocking the salmon the government is now legally committed to bringing water back to a dry river.  I would ask where in the world is this water going to come from and at what cost is the water going to be diverted from wherever it is now going?  I would feel a lot more comfortable about this if I had the answers to these questions.  

I seriously appreciate your efforts to highlight this piece of legislation.  Love this site!

Newton, you are 100% correct. I realized when I posted this that there would be a lot of bullet holes in my logic and I appreciate your thorough response. I'll take the arguments one at a time, and then give my overall opinion.

Admitedly, I don't know enough specifics about the private ownership which is being affected, however as I understand it (I cannot find the article now), the majority of the land was property which was already deemed "recreational". This means you simply cannot build on it anyway. More to your point, I too have experienced a similar situation to what your family went through. I purchased land in Lake Okeechobee several years ago. The land was at a significant value, and I felt it was a decent investment. After about a year, this legislation was passed called "Wetland Mitigation". The program basically deemed my property wetlands, and quite literally, overnight, the value was more than halved. I spoke several times to the property appraisers there and they told me that from their satellite images, it looked to them like it was wetlands (I've been there, and it's all trees and shrubs... with a canal on the side). I argued with them, and was finally able to resolve it after several written letters. In any event, I am certainly not dismissing the propert rights of those few owners, I am sympathetic, but I still feel in this case the greater good outweighs the loss of the few. I don't want to leave it at that, so I'll come back to this point.

You mention the San Joaquin River being a "dry river". There's actually a long story that goes with this, and I actually watched a long documentary on this particular river. The story about this river is nearly identical to the history of the Florida Everglades. Back in the 20 and 30s, the US Government was about as oblivious to the country's ecology as Ayatolla Komehnie is about the Atari 2600. Back in the day, the government, in hopes of improving the economy and providing jobs, decided to divert the San Joaquin river to other parts of the South West. What they did was actually build a massive dam (Friant Dam) . This water was diverted (basically destroying the existing eco system that existed) towards several small fledgling towns. Basically, for the most part, they created thousands of jobs during the great depression that really served no purpose. It would be like paying 1000 men to dig a ditch to no where. In addition, by diverting the river, it literally put out of business several farmers and caused many small towns to become ghost towns. The river has been hotly contested and there have been numerous law suites and legislation with respect to allowing the river to reclaim some of it's old path. The effort that would be necessary to bring water back to San Joaquin river is nothing more than simply allowing the dam to open during extended periods of time. I'm leaving out a LOT of the history, but that's a simple primer.

Back to your original point about the property rights, as that is really your key point here. I don't want to be a hypocrit and say that "the needs of the many outweight the few" in one breath, and then in another complain that it's unfair that "the few pay the taxes for the benefit of the many". My argument certainly is laced with emotion, but in the case of our natural resources... when they are gone... they're gone forever. No amount of money can bring back a pristine habitat or animals when its gone or they're extinct. In this case, we've set aside 2 million acres of land that are now protected from urban sprawl. This land (like Central Park) is now protected for future generations.

The real point I'm trying to drive home is that, for those who have certainly been disenfranchied by this (even if few in number), they have the ability to fight it. This was a once in a million chance to set aside this vast amount of land for preservation that we've never had in history before. I'd like to take this moment to emphesize the fact that the Republicans were the first true environmentalists. The first national park was set up by a Republican (Yellowstone), Division of Forestry and National Park Service was all set up by a Republican. The Florida Everglades are protected in part because of Republicans. This particular piece of legislation that was passed includes more land preservation than all of the previous legislation passed in the past 12 years. This is such a significant bill that I really feel the goal outweighs the means.

You'll find it interesting to note that the biggest complaint was the potential loss of energy deposits. There's always the possibility after the fact, that corporations can still lobby to extract the resources from the land. This has happened in similar instances before. The fight on Anwar is a real strange situation and the only reason why it's become so publicized is because the environmentalists (many of the protests are sponsored by the United Arab Emerites) picked this particular one to "hang their hat on" so to speak. For what it's worth, I completely support drilling in Anwar. 

Todd and Newton, it seems that both of you are making some good points.  Here are some of my thoughts, for what it's worth:

1) On the surface, this seems to be one of those noncontroversial bills that can pass with little bad to be said about it.  Everyone wants to preserve land and our resources.

2) If this was an isolated incident, I would probably agree with you, Todd.  Eminent domain does have its place in this world, where sometimes a few people will have to sacrifice for the greater good of the many.  Legitimate examples include building hospitals, interstates or schools on land that was previously private property.  However, this does not seem to be an isolated incident. As I've noted elsewhere, since Obama has taken office, he has attempted to consolidate governmental power under his authority.  When one looks at the larger picture, every action Obama sems to take seems to fit this profile.  This should make all Aericans, not just conservatives, a little bit weary.

3) At first, I thought I woul object to the restocking of the San Joaquin River too, but if your explanation is acurate that might actually be a long overdue move.

4) The natural resources restrictions worry me.  If this restricts the United States from mining or drilling for much needed resources, then the move bothers me. 

5) Regardless, if this land is so essential to preserve, then the private property owners it affects should be compensated.

Matt, Newton, here is a quick article I found with respect to the history of the San Joaquin river. It took me a while to find it, but it basically explains in better detail what I tried to do.

www.nrdc.org/water/conservation/sanjoaquin.asp

I highly recommend reading the entire thing, it's pretty detailed.

Quick Overview:

For more than half a century, California's San Joaquin River -- with its bone-dry reaches, polluted runoff and decimated salmon runs -- has exemplified unbalanced water management policy in the West. Since the completion of Friant Dam in the 1940s, nearly 95 percent of this once-mighty river's flow has been diverted for irrigation, causing over 60 miles of the river to run dry, harming fish and wildlife and degrading water quality for nearly two-thirds of all Californians.

And then this with regards to the salmon:

Many people had written off the San Joaquin River and its salmon runs as lost forever. However, in 1988, NRDC and a broad coalition of fishermen and conservation groups brought suit in U.S. district court in an effort to bring the river and its native fisheries back to life. Sixteen years later, in August 2004, the coalition achieved a landmark victory when a judge ruled that the operation of Friant Dam violates one of California's most important fishery protection statutes, Section 5937 of the California Fish and Game Code, which states: "[t]he owner of any dam shall allow sufficient water to pass over, around or through the dam, to keep in good condition any fish that may be planted or exist below the dam."

I'll try to get a bit more information on the property rights issue, but I don't believe eminent domain was used. The land wasn't being taken from anyone, simply being listed as unbuildable. In most of the cases (in the breif article I read) suggested that the vast majority of these properties were listed as "recreational" already (which means you can't build on it anyway).

The land real estate business is a very tricky thing... I tried to do as much research as I can when I bought the land that I have. You REALLY have to do your due dilligence since there are so many hidden aspects that can throw you under the bus.

1. Any government restrictions (like the Scrub Jay zoning in South West Florida. The land is still considered buildable, and for all intents and purposes... you CAN build on it. But if it's under the Scrub Jay zoning, you are NOT allowed to build, even if it says you can. Wetland Mitigation is another.
2. Time Limit To Build: sometimes when you buy a piece of property, they have time limits where by you are required to build a structure within a certain time frame.
3. Hidden liens and back taxes.
4. Deed types : Warranty Deed, or not?
5. Land Access : if the land is trapped in the middle of other pieces of land which are not yours and there is no common easement, then the only way to get to your land (legally) would be by helicopter.
6. Zoning: If it's not properly zoned, then the land is otherwise worthless. If it's zoned as farm-land, then you can't use it for another other than that.

It just goes ON and ON and ON... not to mention that some people parcel out lands and sneak in a monthly or yearly association fee in the contract. So someone think's their getting an excellent deal on a piece of land, but they end up having to pay a monthly fee for the next 10-15 years which amounts to more than the land initially cost.

Ugh...

Todd, your responses on the issue of the San Joaquin River were quite interersting as well as informative.  Thanks to your research I do actually feel better about that aspect of this land deal.

However, I am still uncomfortable about the energy and the private property rights issues; moreso with the private property rights issue because it's so fundamental to our freedom.  You said, " . . .but I don't believe eminent domain was used". 

That's actually the part that is the scariest to me.  Environmentalists and liberals in government love to take the land "for the better good" without paying for it.  It's cheaper that way and they don't have to go through all the bother of proving their case in a court.  Under eminent domain, they must take title to the property and go through a lot of hassle with something called due process. 

The preferred method is to find (or claim to find) a rare bug living on the property in question and declare the whole area to be a refuge of some kind.  Naturally, the poor owner is blindsided by this somewhat less-than-open process and he all of a sudden finds out he can't use the land anymore for its intended purpose and, for the same reason, he cannot even sell it. 

This happens over and over and over again, all in the name of "the public good".  With all my heart I believe we can never knowingly allow even a handful of  owners to suffer this fate because we could always be next.

The energy issue is troubling as well.  Now, if my memory serves me, our country has decided that we cannot get proven massive reserves of oil/gas from Alaska, the Gulf of Mexico and, now, within the continental United States.  Do I see a pattern emerging here of purposely starving us of our own reserves to make us even more dependent on foreign reserves?  Yup, I do.  Sad.

Newton, I will (in the next day or so), do the best that I can to find out every aspect and several examples of the confliction with this legislation and the effect it has / will have on private property owners and then get back to you.

As for the natural resources, I hadn't heard that we were "unable" to get significant oil from Alaska, in particular the Anwar reserves. As a matter of fact, Canada is drilling (vertically) these reserves that are on our property. About 90% of this reserve is on American land, but Canada has access to a small portion of it. Since the oil will continue to flow (when displaced with water) towards the area from which it's being extracted, Canada is basically stealing our own oil.

The real hypocracy is that drilling in Anwar is basically ALREADY being done. All of the lobbying and protests are organized by major oil conglomerates. Not Exxon, or Shell or companies like that, but OPEC, oil trust companies in Canada. There were several articles that I've read (in the past, when this was more of a hot issue) that proved that many of the protests were organized (meaning the organizers were being paid from foreign accounts tied to groups) by the United Arab Emirates. Other examples showed them being paid by Canadian Energy Trust companies. 

Anyway, the "fear" is that we will be prevented from getting resources that we don't actually yet know exist. The fear from the opposition is simply that they won't be allowed to. Give me some time and I'll try to find some additional information that gives both sides of the argument. I'll need to dissect the bill since it includes several bills. 

"Newton, I will (in the next day or so), do the best that I can to find out every aspect and several examples of the confliction with this legislation and the effect it has / will have on private property owners and then get back to you." - Todd

Now, that would be interesting . . .

"As for the natural resources, I hadn't heard that we were "unable" to get significant oil from Alaska, in particular the Anwar reserves. As a matter of fact, Canada is drilling (vertically) these reserves that are on our property." - Todd

Well, yes, I was speaking of Anwar when I made my commenet about Alaska.  It may, indded, be true that Canadian interests are getting that oil that is rightfully ours but, like I said, WE are perevented from getting it unless we purchase it from another foreign country.  Just like the oil reserves in the Gulf of Mexico where Cuba is now making serious plans to drill for the very oil that we are prohibited from obtaining. 

I still see a pattern here and what gets to me more than anything is that they're absolutely getting away with it every time I go buy gas for my car.  I feel like I'm being held hostage in my own country and that I'm powerless to do anything about it on my own and my government refuses to do anything about it on my behalf.  To the contrary, my own government is complicit in the conspiracy.  Grrrr . . . .

Newton, just a quick response about the oil in the Gulf. It's too expensive to drill oil in the gulf and make it worth while. Unless oil is above $50 a barrel it becomes a financial LOSS to drill the oil. The oil platforms are actually not owned by oil companies, or by the government. These platforms are owned by an independant company and switch contracts months at a time. An employee of a platform might work for Esso / Exxon-Mobile one month, and then work for Royal Dutch Shell the next. There's a lot of hype on both sides that really puts things out of perspective.

WHEN oil returns to above $50 dollars a barrel, you will then start to see more push towards oil drilling in the gulf and off the southern coast. It's going to be a while though, realistically, I don't expect to see anyone making that investment until oil maintains at least a month above $60 a barrel. Right now it closed at $48.

"It's too expensive to drill oil in the gulf and make it worth while. Unless oil is above $50 a barrel it becomes a financial LOSS to drill the oil." - Todd

This is true, however, the fact remains that even if oil does go above that threshold, as it has in the very recent past, we are forbidden to drill there.  In other words, the naysayers have already spoken and said that, although the oil is out there, we cannot have it even if we should need it in the future.

To me this is just wrong and is purposely designed to hurt us as a nation.  Everyone knows oil/gas reserves are a finite resource and will, eventually, run out.  It would just make sense to be prepared for that eventuality by positioning us as ready to go when that day comes rather than positioning as beggars to the world. 

Doesn't the Bible make reference to storing up food in times of plenty so as to ride out a famine?  I see this as something similar.  We should be prerapring to ride out an energy famine by placing ourselves in a position to go get the oil we need, especially when that oil is right in our own back yard.  Instead, thanks to liberals and their hate America approach to life, our nation has already been put on notice that we cannot even drill for our own oil in Anwar, the Gulf of Mexico and, now, in this latest land deal right in our continental borders.

I still contend there is a pattern, here, and I still contend this will bite us on the collective butt some day in the future unless it is rectified.

As far as whether oil drilling is profitable in the Gulf or not, I say we let the markets decide, as any self-respecting capitalist country would do.  Profitability is somethng for businesses and entrepreneurs to decide, not governments.

Newton, I'm not stating opinion here, but merely regurgitating a few facts. We currently DO drill off shore, and have over ~5,000 spots around the gulf that the US has leased out which allows us to drill. These spots are already rich with resources. This is where the confusion I think is. We already are performing off-shore drilling, and lots of it. The argument is whether or not we should also allow them to drill in navigable waters in between the US and Cuba.  There exists a ban, right now, that prevents us from increasing the number of off-shore drilling areas, or "leasing out" the areas for that matter. Believe it or not, this bill was passed by Ronald Reagan. During Bush Sr.'s term in office, he signed into law further legislation preventing additional off-shore drilling. Bush Jr however, repealed this law sometime in 2007 or last year I believe. However, because of the existing law during the Reagan Administration, we are still unable to lease additional areas off our immediate shore in the gulf, or south of Florida.

Matt, with respect to the profitability, it's not my opinion, honestly... the markets have decided and there are only a few oil platforms that are currently in production. The media seems to focus on a few areas, but no one actually wants to drill there. Even Cuba's claim that they are "exploring options" is merely just political talk to create additional unrest in the US. When oil skyrocketed last spring, there was actual talk that it might happen, but Cuba simply does not have the resources to build an army of tanks, let alone a massive billion dollar oil platform. There were talks of Petrobras (Brazilian oil company with which I hold stock in) leasing an oil platform and drilling for Cuba, but it's still merely been conjecture.

The big confusion here is that the United States doesn't actually drill oil for itself. It's still purely a capitalist market (with which I completely agree). The United States doesn't own the oil platforms, the tankers, or the companies that drill or refine the oil. They can reduce legislation and provide new areas for companies to go in and build refineries and drill for oil, but unless there is a corporation willing to do that, it's just not going to happen.

BECAUSE oil (right now), is below $50 dollars a barrel, and well below the profitability point in the market, no one is going to bother drilling for oil, or moving oil platforms to existing (very rich) oil fields in the gulf because the expense greatly outweighs the profit.  As it stands, getting oil from the South America (land) and Saudi Arabia is still FAR cheaper, and less expensive than drilling off the coast.

Make no mistake about it... there are over 5000 oil fields off the gulf that are available for oil platforms, and only a handful of oil platforms drilling them due to the cost and expense.

The BIGGEST travesty in all of this however, is the fact that Anwar would be an immediate improvement, but we are prevented from drilling there due to legislation. We already have the infrastructure in place, and could have additional pipe-lines built (conforming to environmental standards) within a year or two. That's what we should be focusing on. Even though the drilling, extraction, and oil processing would be done by a corporation, the end result would mean that the oil would inevitably come from us, and be delivered exclusively to us (since we have that control). In addition, the taxes paid by the corporation(s) that does it would be paid to the United States anyway. Not to mention the number of jobs it would be providing.

There is far less "control" when we drill off-shore because it's in international waters (3.5 miles off the coast, but 10.5 miles between Florida and Texas).

Bottom line, drilling off shore is silly just for the sake of "drilling off shore". It's too expensive right now, and the market HAS spoken and simply doesn't justify the expense. I own a bunch of oil stocks, energy trusts, and energy ETFs so I've done significant research to determine what will do well under what market conditions. So I'm not just shooting from the hip here...

Doesn't the Bible make reference to storing up food in times of plenty so as to ride out a famine?  I see this as something similar.  We should be prerapring to ride out an energy famine by placing ourselves in a position to go get the oil we need, especially when that oil is right in our own back yard.  Instead, thanks to liberals and their hate America approach to life, our nation has already been put on notice that we cannot even drill for our own oil in Anwar, the Gulf of Mexico and, now, in this latest land deal right in our continental borders.

Nice try, but that isn't what this is about at all.  If that was the case, then we should leave it where it is so we CAN drill it later if there is a time of great need for it.  This is about sacrificing short short term for cheaper prices.  Like Todd said, there are plenty of other options not even being explored.  Texas has land fields we aren't even drilling, because again, the market has spoken (too expensive).  When the price goes back up we'll revisit this again, but offshore drilling isn't going to stop us from funding the middle east or any of those bogus arguments.

This is a slam dunk position and Republicans had it and they are giving it up for foolish reasons.

TLM - Since you mention the land drilling, I just want to expand on it with a bit more information. Most of the "easy" to drill wells in Texas have already been pursued and utilized. There are still some that are currently operational. There are several "fields" (they all have fancy names, and oil investors know almost all of them). Most of these fields however which have the massive deposits of oil have a different soil consistency than the others. In the cases of the ones which are too expensive to drill, there's limestone rock, (among others) which prevent the oil from being accessed as a large "pocket". In some cases, the oil basically sits in a pocket which is made up of large pieces of porous rock. Because of this, the oil CAN flow between these pockets easily, but not at the same level of flow that would be beneficial to drilling them "right now".  We DO have technology to get to these various "chambers". This type of drilling technology is known as horizontal drilling. Basically, it's where we drill vertically, get to a pocket, and then drill horizontally from that point which in turn connects all the pockets. We then fill in the void left by the removed oil with seawater.

There are other such issues for other fields, but that is the most common. At this point in time, the capitalist market IS in fact dictating where the oil comes from. I make no bones about it when I say that we need to "define" what our goal is. If our goal is to lower gas prices, then we should continue to get oil from OPEC and continue to kiss their butts. If our goal is to get rid of foreign oil dependancy, then we SHOULD drill in these places, but expect oil prices to double within a week when we make the complete change-over. Unfortunately, we really can't have both. The ONLY way we could have our cake and eat it too is drilling in Anwar... but our politicians (on BOTH sides) continue to get lobbied by OPEC and other leaders from the UAE to shoot down any legislation that would mobilize us in that direction.

I just simply have to say that whatever your position on land conservation is, we should all be able to agree that the federal government has no right to grab any land. For conservation or anything else,  if the state would like to set land away for conservation then okay but the federal government has no right. I AM ONLY TALKING OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

Robert,

       Well, with respect to my view, I agree with you. However, lets just put it this way for clarification. I specifically believe the government really doesn't have the right to TAKE land from private land owners.

That said, what this post was about, and this law specifically, was setting aside land, and marking it as protected. This caused controversy specifically because it in many respect "locked up" lots of natural resources such as natural gas, oil, and minerals. Some private lands were affected, and although I was unable to find any solid statistics on it, the majority of the private land (which makes up an extremely small percent, for arguments sake) that was affected, was already land which you couldn't build on anyway. Most of the land that people buy out in the wilderness already has a zoning of "recreational", which means that you can't build anything on it, or make any land improvements. All this did was simply say that not only is it recreational property, but now it's also conservation land. This means it can never be mined, etc, for any minerals or anything that exists on it.

There of course also exists Eminent Domain, which I really hate... but I guess you have to take it on a case by case basis. If someone owns a condo and the entire building is getting condemned, the government has the right to buy it and force the person to move. Then again, they also use it when they want to build a highway or an airforce base. I can't really give a solid opinion on it since it's really one of those things that you need to look at the individual case. However, I do agree with you within 99%. (if that makes sense)

This was just posted to Fox News: 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05/27/signs-point-administration-plan-lock-m-acres-federal-land/?test=latestnews

Signs Point to Administration Plan to Lock Up 13M Acres of Federal Land

A leaked partial document produced by the Bureau of Land Management and obtained by Fox News suggests the Obama administration is considering a plan to lock up 13 million acres of land -- and the Department of Interior is refusing to answer questions.

First, a little background: The federal government owns about one-third of the land in the United States -- most of it in western states. For example, 84 percent of Nevada is owned by Uncle Sam.

But the government leases large parcels of federal land for all sorts of things -- grazing, mining, exploration, recreation.

Those commercial activities create jobs and tax revenue for the states. Tax revenues from commercial activity on federal lands often pays for local schools. However, with the single stroke of his pen, President Obama can use the Antiquities of Act of 1906 to turn federal land into National Monuments.

That would effectively lock up the land from any kind of private use or development.

The plan may actually be more than 13 million acres. Republican members of the House have asked for the rest of the memo, but the Department of the Interior is refusing to hand it over.

Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash., said he is worried.

"When the administration is, for lack of a better word, stiffing us -- you know that causes concern," Hastings said during a hallway interview on Capitol Hill. "We do have responsibilities to our constituents to make sure that when there is a huge change on federal lands in their area, that they are part of that process. We are afraid that that process is going to be taken away from them and that's why we're asking for these documents."

Republicans on the House Natural Resources Committee were unable to garner Democratic support for a resolution requiring the Department of Interior to produce some 2,000 documents it has on this matter.

The DOI did cough up 300 e-mails that Republicans say do not reveal very much.

When contacted by Fox News, the department's press secretary hinted that the GOP request is under further review.

"This is an on-going process," Kendra Barkoff wrote. "We may supplement this response as the process is concluded."

There are those who believe these lands are precious -- and should be locked up from development. But in western states this is controversial.

Western state governors are worried that the Obama administration is going to do this quickly and quietly -- without public hearings. They want the process to be more transparent. But for now, those documents are being tightly held by the Obama Department of Interior.
 

I find it funny that this single post is ranked #3 in the most accessed posts on this website.