!

Introduction "
From the beginning, land in Americawhat to do with it and who should control ithas been an issue of
contention and the subject of deeply divided ideologies. On one end of the spectrum are those who believe
there are intrinsic, ecological, spiritual, cultural, and aesthetic values in retaining public land, a commons; on
the other are those who see the public domain as a government land grab that prevents these areas from
being developed or exploited for direct economic benefit.

In the middle of the spectrum, for the most part, is the American public, which does not spend a great deal
of time thinking about the value of the commons but does rise up whenas happens on a cyclical basisa
proposal is floated for wholesale disposal of the public domain.

Ronald Reagans Interior Secretary, James Watt, famously proposed that public lands be sold to help pay
down the federal deficit. More recently, former Rep. Richard Pombo (R-CA), who was briefly the Chair of
the House Resources Committee, proposed in 2005 that mining corporations be allowed to buy vast tracts
of public land for $1,000 per acre.

The Bush Administrations 2007 budget called for the sale of $800 million worth of national forest lands over five
years and $182 million in public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management in the same time period.

Watts run at public land set o a surge in Sierra Club memberships. The Pombo and Bush proposals in-
spired outrage among the public, and politicians of every stripe tripped over each other to show who could
protest more loudly.

These periodic, high-profile, sweeping, ideologically-driven land disposal schemes gain the publics at-
tention because they are over the top. What the public is largely not aware of is the fact that smaller scale
disposal schemes are being enacted every dayoften by the very politicians who declaim their love for the
environment and public land.

Readers may see a striking similarity (if on a dierent scale) between the way land was treated in our early his-
torydescribed in Chapter 1, The Pastand the land schemes promoted today by some Members of Congress.

! "
When the Western Lands Project began its work as the Western Land Exchange Project in 1997, we focused
almost exclusively on land trades implemented by the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management
(BLM)monitoring, reviewing, and often challenging projects, and simultaneously identifying and pushing
for needed reforms.

But we were also aware that, while the land agencies were sometimes breaking the rules and in fact needed
better rules, something entirely dierent was going on in the U.S. Congress, where members were free to
wheel, deal, carve up, and give away public lands with no rules to hinder them.

When the General Accounting Oce issued a scathing audit report on Forest Service and BLM land trades
in 2000, the government watchdog concluded with a recommendation that Congress withdraw the land
agencies authority to do land trades and that they be enacted only legislatively.

Even as perhaps the most vocal critic of the agency land exchange programs, we knew enough about the way
Congress deals public land to understand the inherent problems in that recommendation. Not the least of
which was that the reforms that could be possible within the agencies would never touch Congress politi-
cized, free-lancing ways.
vii
As environmental and public land activists became aware of the significance of land exchanges and the
means by which they could be challenged, and as the agencies, under pressure, instituted reforms, an in-
creasing number of land deals that might have been accomplished within the agencies were being carried
through Congress instead.

! "
As explained in Chapter 2, The Process and its Pitfalls, congressional land deals present a variety of per-
ilsto land and to citizens wishing to preserve it. Anywhere from 15 to 50 exchanges, sales, and outright
giveaways may occur in each Congress, many of them enacted on a fast track and in the dark.

These land deals comprise an equal opportunity program for both major parties. While there is generally
a dierence in philosophy toward public landwith Republicans favoring less of it than Democratsand
while, as a party, Democrats have a far better record on public land protection, the more consequential split
is between western and eastern politicians.

In the West, where most of our public lands reside, and with a range of 30 to 80+ percent federal land within
each of the eleven western states, the states with the highest federal ownership tend to elect (if unwittingly)
politicians who favor at least some privatization, no matter what their party. This is what makes the purported-
ly environmentally-oriented Democratic Senator Harry Reid of Nevada (83 percent federal land) as avid a land
dealer as was the anti-environmental former Republican Rep. James Hansen of Utah (63 percent federal land).

It is by no means just ideology or geography that inspires congressional land dealsfrequently, the bot-
tom line is the direct, pragmatic opportunity to reward friends or curry political favor through the gift of
public land. For Reid, it means opening up vast stretches of raw land for developers in the Las Vegas Valley,
and even a land giveaway targeted to help a personal friend. For Hansen, it was engineering land trades that
would enrich his states land agency and gift the church to which he belongs. In Chapter 3, People, we show
how well-placed members can spin complex, far-reaching deals that set the tone and establish the chemistry
for what will happen to public lands for years on end.

Occasionally, the influence of one or two members can lead to greater security for public land. Although the
congressional committees that oversee public lands do attract members who would just as soon privatize
every acre in the public domain, there are also members who sit through the hearings, negotiate over bills,
and guide policy because they believe our public lands are worthy of respect and protection.

Rep. Nick Rahall (D-WV) has served on the House Natural Resources Committee for more than 30 years
and became Chair when the Democrats reclaimed the House majority in 2006. The committees website
quickly changed from the Republicans photo album of relentless exploitationcows, wind turbines, drill
rigsto one of nature scenes, wildlife, and beautiful sunsets. Rahall has made impassioned statements for
the value of wilderness and against land disposal.

Ral Grijalva (D-AZ), first elected in 2002, became Chair of the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on
National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands in the 111th Congress. A staunch defender of public land, Grijalva
turned down a seat on the powerful Ways & Means Committee in order to stay on at Natural Resourcesa
stunningly principled decision.

In declining Ways & Means, Grijalva said his chairmanship of the subcommittee was more important and
he wished to stay on in order to address issues such as uranium mining in the Grand Canyon and the con-
tinued preservation of our public lands.

viii
 Early in the Obama Administration, Grijalva was under consideration
for Secretary of the Interior. His candidacy was strongly supported by
grassroots environmental activists, who were disappointed with the
ultimate choice of Sen. Ken Salazar (D-CO) for the position.

George Miller (D-CA) had a leading role in scrutinizing the land deals
that went through the House Natural Resources Committee in the days
before the 1994 Republican takeover, and it was Millerwhile a mem-
ber of the minoritywho called for the sweeping GAO investigation of
2000 mentioned earlier.

! "
We began our research with the premise that it would be most per-
Western Lands Project

tinent to focus on land exchange and sale legislation occurring after

1976. That is the year that Congress passed the Federal Land Policy &
Management Act (FLPMA). This act gave broad authority to the BLM
and additional authority and structure to the Forest Service to imple-
ment these transactions. New authority for the BLM made it possible
to do exchanges that would previously have had to go through Congress,
Ral Grijalva brought a strong
and the FLPMA regulations covering both agencies provided a more
land preservation ethic to his
rational, consistent, transparent process.
chairmanship of the House public
lands subcommittee.
Only a relatively small number of trades meet the two criteria that still
require congressional actionexchanges that cross state lines or in-
volve more than one federal agency. Our logic, therefore, was that after
1976, congressional land deals, especially exchanges, were more likely
to be either (1) special deals designed to sidestep the agencies laws and regulations, or (2) projects that
would not survive agency deliberation and/or public scrutiny.

As you will see, in the vast majority of cases, this was so. In Chapter 4, Projects, we look at a range of proj-
ects in an attempt to show the scope and variety of these transactions; the motivations and political calcu-
lations behind individual projects, and the level of impact they can have both on land and policy. That is
followed by a chapterPure Politicsthat describes the recent trend in consensus wilderness that incor-
porated land exchanges, sales, and giveaways into wilderness legislation as political tradeos.

! "
Here and there, we include some ideas and speculation about the potential for change in how, whether, and
the extent to which Congress will continue to carve up our commons. This book goes to print just as the
prospects for serious, positive changes in public land policy look better than they have for some time.

In the appendices we get the perspective of a former, long-time congressional committee staer who
worked every day with public land issues; show the anatomy of a land trade bill; explain how the laws and
processes for land exchanges and sales work when implemented by the agencies, rather than Congress; and
oer pointers on how all of usthe citizens and co-owners of our public landscan fulfill our civic duty
and potential by involving ourselves in these decisions.

ix