LandReport.com » Joseph Guinto

The Land Report Looks at the Obama Cabinet

Joseph Guinto — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 13:17:14 +0000

While a few of President Obama’s cabinet nominees remain to be confirmed, others — such as Ken Salazar (pictured) — will exert enormous influence on landowners and have been hard at work since hours after the inauguration.

KEN SALAZAR
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

THE DEPARTMENT: Interior is the most influential department when it comes to policies affecting landowners. Covered under its jurisdictional umbrella are the National Park Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the Mineral Management Services, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

THE NEW SECRETARY: A senator from Colorado since 2004, Salazar and his brother John (who serves in the U.S. House of Representatives) and six other siblings grew up on a 1,200 acre ranch near the San Antonio River that was originally settled in the 1860s by their great-great grandfather Francisco. Their childhood home had no electricity or running water. Salazar will be one of the most recognizable cabinet secretaries, thanks to the cowboy hat he wears regularly with business attire.

THE EXPECTATIONS: Environmental and conservation groups praised Salazar’s appointment, even though he has not always been their favorite senator. Still, they like the fact that Salazar has long been an advocate of national parks protections, and a critic of oil and gas development on public lands in the western U.S. Cabinet watchers believe that will translate into a rollback of George W. Bush’s moves to open some federal lands to drilling — particularly in Utah. And, landowner groups, especially ranching groups, also have had kind words so far.

TOM VILSACK
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

THE DEPARTMENT: A powerhouse both in Washington and in rural America, the USDA does everything from providing support to family farmers to regulating food safety.

THE NEW SECRETARY: Vilsack was a two-term governor of Iowa when, in 2006, he became a Democratic presidential primary opponent of Obama. His campaign fizzled almost immediately and he dropped out after three months, eventually becoming co-chairman of Senator Hillary Clinton’s campaign. Apparently the new president isn’t holding any grudges against Vilsack.

THE EXPECTATIONS: The challenges for Vilsack are significant thanks to the current recession. The credit crisis has squeezed farmers; once-hot commodities are now sinking in value; and farmers big and small are cutting jobs to stay profitable. That’s put rural America, which depends on federal policymakers for direction, market regulation, and, often, hard cash, in a worrisome mood.

STEPHEN CHU
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

THE DEPARTMENT: The main regulator of industries who generate and supply power — in all its literal forms — the Energy Department also funds hundreds of scientific research projects.
THE NEW SECRETARY: Chu is a Nobel Prize-winning physicist, the first Nobel winner selected to a presidential cabinet. He is also the former head of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

THE EXPECTATIONS: Obama made a plethora of campaign pledges related to energy, and it’ll be Chu’s job to try and deliver. He’ll push to cap greenhouse gas emissions, change regulations related to offshore drilling, and move the U.S. away from foreign oil, in part by creating tax breaks and other incentives for development of renewable energy — including wind farms, which are of particular interest to large landowners such as T. Boone Pickens, whose Mesa Vista Ranch was featured in the Fall 2008 issue.

The Land Report Looks at the New Congress

Joseph Guinto — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 16:00:02 +0000

The 111th Congress, with the strongest Democratic majority in years, was seated on January 6 and already the body is at work on legislation of significant importance to landowners nationwide.

Some lawmakers want to roll back rules put in place by the Bush Administration. Others want Obama’s White House to put more money into land and less into tax breaks as a means to boost the economy.

Here’s a rundown on several key legislators and their committees — all of whom are worth watching as the year progresses. A complete review of the key players will be featured as the cover story of the Spring 2009 Land Report.

THE SENATE

COMMITTEE: Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
RETURNING CHAIR: Jeff Bingaman, D-New Mexico
RANKING REPUBLICAN: Pete Domenici, R-New Mexico
BATTLE LINES: Though he’s an advocate of “green” policies, Bingaman has introduced a $10 billion legislative package that bundles 160 different bills into a single proposal. A single proposal that runs 1,300 pages long, that is. The Omnibus Lands Management Act seeks to capitalize on the new weakness of Senate Republicans, who have blocked some of the 160 measures it contains.

COMMITTEE: Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry
RETURNING CHAIR: Tom Harkin, D-Iowa.
RANKING REPUBLICAN: Saxby Chambliss, R-Georgia
BATTLE LINES: We know this: There won’t be a fight over President-Elect Obama’s choice of agriculture secretary, Tom Vilsack. Harkin has already thrown his support behind Vilsack, a fellow Iowan, and Harkin’s committee will hold Vilsack’s confirmation hearings.

COMMITTEE: Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works
RETURNING CHAIR: Barbara Boxer, D-California.
RANKING REPUBLICAN: James Inhofe, R-Oklahoma
BATTLE LINES: Boxer, like Harkin, also will ask the Obama Administration to ramp up spending to boost the economy. In particular, she’ll seek more funds for waterway projects.

THE HOUSE

COMMITTEE: House Committee on Energy and Commerce
NEW CHAIR: Henry Waxman, D-California.
RANKING REPUBLICAN: Joe Barton, R-Texas
BATTLE LINES: Waxman toppled Dingell in part because he promised to push for stricter laws on greenhouse gas emission. That may mean a crackdown on coal producers, whom Waxman has targeted in previous legislation.

COMMITTEE: House Committee on Natural Resources
RETURNING CHAIR: Nick Rahall, West Virginia.
RANKING REPUBLICAN: Doc Hastings, R-Washington
BATTLE LINES: Though his party is now fully in charge of Congress and the White House, Rahall may still have a fight on his hands with Rep. Waxman on coal (see above) as well as with the outgoing Bush Administration.

COMMITTEE: House Committee on Agriculture
RETURNING CHAIR: Collin Peterson, D-Minnesota.
RANKING REPUBLICAN: Bob Goodlatte, R-Virginia.
BATTLE LINES: Just a year into his chairmanship, Peterson led the charge in the House to buck President Bush’s second veto of the Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008, aka, the Farm Bill. In the current Congress, Peterson will be called on to press for more regulation of commodity futures markets, which have been extremely volatile in the current recession.

Idaho Ranchers Challenge Taylor Grazing Act

Joseph Guinto — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 19:00:42 +0000

BY JOSEPH GUINTO
PUBLISHED NOVEMBER 2007

When the U.S. Supreme Court convened in October, the men (and woman) in black did not discuss landowner water rights. And for a pair of longtime Idaho ranchers—and perhaps other landowners—no news might mean bad news.

For the moment, the court has made no decision on whether to take up the case of Joyce Livestock vs. the United States. Earlier this year, Joyce and LU Ranching won a ruling against the federal government in Idaho’s Supreme Court in a potentially precedent-setting case of grazing rights.

Ranchers have long been subject to the rules set by the Bureau of Land Management under the 1934 Taylor Grazing Act. That act allows federal officials to set the terms under which ranchers can use public lands, including whether and how much water can be used.

But in 2005, Joyce and LU challenged that law as it applied to Idaho’s Snake River Basin. They argued that because they had operated in the area for more than 100 years—long before the Taylor Act—they had established water rights that the government could not remove.

By February of this year, their case reached the Idaho Supreme Court, which ruled in favor of the livestock firms. But the court did not allow the companies’ claim to have the U.S. government pay their $1.3 million court fees. Idaho’s Supreme Court said the government did not act frivolously. The ranchers argued that the Equal Access to Justice Act—a law intended to prevent the government from running roughshod over small businesses and individuals by prolonging expensive litigation—entitled them to court costs. But the Idaho court said it had no jurisdiction to rule on that claim, leaving the U.S. Supreme Court as the last resort.

With the court’s docket already set until next year, precedent-watchers will have to wait on a final outcome.

Animal ID System Faces Stiff Opposition

Joseph Guinto — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 07:00:56 +0000

BY JOSEPH GUINTO
PUBLISHED OCTOBER 2007

A program the U.S. Department of Agriculture calls “one of the largest systematic changes ever faced by the livestock industry” may be in trouble. The National Animal Identification System, which has been praised by some large livestock companies and panned by many individual landowners, was criticized in a government audit this summer. The Government Accountability Office concluded the NAIS might be “in danger of losing momentum.” At the same time, the U.S. House of Representatives didn’t include new, direct funding for the program in the version of the farm bill it passed. (At press time, the Senate’s version of the farm bill was unavailable.)

The NAIS has been plagued by controversy ever since the USDA announced it four years ago. Th e program was designed to track livestock by location. It asked landowners to register their properties—an address will usually do, but some instances require latitude and longitude coordinates—and register all animals kept on their property. Landowners would also have to log the animals’ whereabouts from birth until death and even implant radio frequency identification tags to help track the animals.

Despite how Orwellian that sounds, the intention behind the NAIS—improving food safety—is unassailable. The USDA insists the program will allow the government to track disease outbreaks among livestock bound for the food chain. Th at ability—to track and potentially limit animal-borne diseases—could make U.S. food products more desirable on the world market, especially since other countries have adopted similar programs. No surprise, then, that the NAIS has found considerable favor with large livestock producers in the United States.

It hasn’t been as popular, though, with some individual landowners. Though the NAIS is a voluntary program, its big-brother aspects have raised the ire of hundreds of landowners who either keep livestock as pets or for limited commercial use. Opposition groups like the Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance and the Liberty Ark Coalition have been formed to stifle the NAIS. One Liberty Ark member called the NAIS “one of the most all-encompassing attacks on our right to farm and keep pets as has ever been fomented.”

The government has clearly been listening to that opposition. State governments, that is. Legislation has been proposed in 12 statehouses that would ban or limit states’ participation in the NAIS or similar programs. Those proposals come even as the USDA is funding grants to state and local governments that develop their own registration programs. The USDA has already handed out $35 million in grants.

But that money didn’t help 16-year-old Brandi Calderwood. She was ejected from the Colorado State Fair’s junior livestock sale this summer because the fair’s board had voted to require entrants to be in compliance with some aspects of the NAIS. Though Calderwood did register her animals, the board believed she erred in correctly identifying their location. That’s the kind of bureaucratic mess opponents of the NAIS say will spread nationwide should the program be made mandatory. But the GAO says that if it remains a voluntary program, “that may affect [the USDA’s] ability to attract the necessary levels of participation” to make the program eff ective at limiting animal disease outbreaks. Initially the program was to be mandatory, but responding to opposition from some industry groups, the USDA made the program voluntary in 2006. NAIS has more than 400,000 registrants, and the USDA hopes all livestock owners will be registered by 2009.

One of the objections to making the NAIS mandatory was that the USDA had not yet said how much the program would cost individual livestock owners. The GAO also criticized the USDA for not conducting a cost-benefit analysis on the program to prove that “the potential benefits of the program outweigh the costs.”

The USDA just awarded a contract to several universities to do an independent cost-benefit analysis on the NAIS. And with the House apparently not in the mood to directly fund the program this year, that study, due back early next year, may prove to be both the figurative and literal bottom line on the future of the NAIS.

Controversial Sale in North Dakota Badlands

Joseph Guinto — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 07:00:16 +0000

BY JOSEPH GUINTO
PUBLISHED OCTOBER 2007

More than 5,000 acres of federal land in North Dakota’s Badlands could go up for sale. That’s up to Congress. The property is supposed to be offered as a unique offset to a purchase made by the U.S. Forest Service. Last spring, the Forest Service ended a years-long controversy by spending $5.3 million on a 5,200-acre ranch across the Little Missouri River from the Elkhorn Ranch, a property once owned by Theodore Roosevelt and considered by many as the nation’s “cradle of conservation.”

Roosevelt retreated to the ranch in the late 1880s and emerged three and a half years later as an avowed environmentalist who would, as president, go on to add millions of acres to the government’s holdings for use as national forests, parks, and wildlife refuges. But adding to the government’s holdings was just what the Forest Service didn’t want to do when it bought the neighboring Blacktail Creek Ranch. After all, the government already owns 1.2 million acres in North Dakota. Some local ranchers and officials vehemently opposed taking a working ranch out of production just so Roosevelt’s property could continue to enjoy an unspoiled view.

So, in a unique compromise, the Forest Service said it would buy the Blacktail Creek Ranch and sell an equivalent amount of land it already owns in North Dakota, but that it would sell that land only to about 40 ranchers who currently own property in Billings County, where Elkhorn Ranch is located. And that’s where Congress gets involved. Or not. Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-North Dakota and a proponent of the ranch purchase, says he doesn’t support legislation with such restrictions.

Bill May Force Landowners to Shoulder Firefighting Cost

Joseph Guinto — Sat, 01 Sep 2007 07:00:33 +0000

When Smokey Bear says, “Only you can prevent forest fires,” he really means it. After several years of historic wildfires in the West that have strained firefighting budgets, burned thousands of acres, and destroyed homes, lawmakers in Washington and at the state and local levels are preparing to ask landowners to help combat the blazes before they begin.

BY JOSEPH GUINTO
PUBLISHED SEPTEMBER 2007

Some will ask nicely: A bill in the Senate sponsored by Sen. Harry Reid, the Nevada Democrat who is that chamber’s majority leader, and by his Nevada Republican counterpart, Sen. John Ensign, would provide incentive payments for landowners to regularly clear the underbrush that helps fuel wildfires. Some will ask not so nicely: State and local lawmakers out West are considering boosting wildfire protection fees charged to landowners living in or near forested areas. In Washington state, legislators are addressing whether the current fee, $18 per every 50 acres, is high enough.

The proposed legislation is partly in response to political pressure on the U.S. Forest Service. That agency is responsible for fighting major forest fires, whether in a lead role or by providing aid to local firefighters. And that responsibility is getting more costly. In 2006, nearly 13,600 square miles of land burned in the United States, a record amount. Fighting large wildfires, like the one that broke out near the Hollywood Hills atop Los Angeles in May, can cost as much as $1 million a day. And in this decade alone, the Forest Service’s annual firefighting budget has almost tripled. It’s expected to hit $3 billion this year.

The Government Accountability Office says that growth is too much, too fast. In a report to Congress earlier this year, the GAO suggested that the Forest Service was spending too much on fire suppression and not enough on prevention.

But officials with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which oversees the Forest Service, say their job has been complicated by development. In particular, they say landowners whose properties are near or within forests have made fighting wildfires harder, in part because their properties can provide fuel for the fires, and have forced them to fight fires differently—focusing on protecting private properties rather than heading off fires as they creep deeper into forested areas.

In Congressional testimony this past June, Agriculture Undersecretary Mark Ray made this point clear, saying, “Every new subdivision presents … an inherently more expensive fire-suppression cost, if we’re going to defend that subdivision.”

No one is suggesting neighborhoods be abandoned, but they are suggesting that properties located deep within forests could be at risk. One budget-saving measure the Forest Service is already adopting is to let some fires in remote areas burn themselves out. This natural way of letting forests thin themselves can help prevent larger fires, but for landowners deep within forests, that’s bad news. Forest Service officials have said they will act to save lives deep in the woods, but the agency’s director of fire and aviation management told the Los Angeles Times recently that they may not act to save property there.

Regardless of Forest Service reforms, lawmakers seem intent on tasking landowners to do more. But if Reid’s legislation passes, they’ll get something in return. At the local level, there could be an extra benefit for landowners in forested areas near urban centers, and some local governments may relax anti-sprawl regulations to allow homes near forests to be built farther apart, allowing for wider roads that firefighting vehicles can more easily navigate. And there remains the possibility that local governments could fine landowners who don’t regularly clear certain types of brush.

The bottom line: The summer’s fires may be out, but the political smoke is far from clearing.

ATV Riders Run Into Bump in Road

Joseph Guinto — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 07:00:23 +0000

Whether you’re tearing it up in an off-road vehicle or all torn up about their impact on the land, you’ll probably want to know about the tongue-twisting new advocacy group known as Rangers for Responsible Recreation. The group, backed by Washington, D.C.-based lobbying outfit Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), may be the most influential so far to push for broader regulations on off-roaders riding on public lands. And their efforts could have a spillover effect on private properties.

BY JOSEPH GUINTO
PUBLISHED AUGUST 2007

This summer, the group, which consists of former National Park Service rangers and former officials from the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management, asked Congress to investigate the financial impact on public lands of damages caused by off-road vehicles. The group also suggested that off-roaders who divert from designated trails be subject to having their hunting and fishing licenses suspended and their vehicles confiscated.

Although their concerns are not new, the influence they wield may be. Off-road vehicles have been causing concerns for years, as suburban and ex-urban neighborhoods push into formerly open lands, forcing off-roaders to increasingly turn to the wide-open spaces of public lands and rural, private properties. But many public lands are not equipped to handle the vehicles-trails are poorly marked, if marked at all, and not enough rangers are on hand to guide riders to proper riding places.

That’s where PEER and Rangers for Responsible Recreation want Congress to come in. Calling “reckless” off-roading the “single greatest threat to American landscapes,” they’re hoping to convince lawmakers to account for the damage being done by off-road vehicles to sensitive ecosystems in hopes that it will push Congress to boost funding for protecting public properties.

Off-road riding advocacy groups bemoan PEER’s condemnation of off-roaders but support better trail development and efforts at rider education.

Congress may already be listening to both sides. The House and Senate have passed funding increases for the U.S. Forest Service’s Trails and Recreation budgets for fiscal year 2008. That’s a key line item. Trails and Recreation are where the Forest Service is getting the money to pay for development of a comprehensive trail system for off-roaders to use. That project, launched in 2005, is to be completed by 2009. It would not only pave proper trails but more clearly mark them as well. This past summer, the House upped the Trails budget by $4.6 million from fiscal 2006. The Senate approved a lesser increase of $2 million. The sides are expected to come together on a compromise increase this fall.

In the meantime, PEER and its group of concerned rangers will keep pushing for more out of Capitol Hill.

New Law Protects Pennsylvania Landowners

Joseph Guinto — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 07:00:17 +0000

The State of Independence has liberated landowners in a case that may set a national precedent. Earlier this summer, Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell signed a law granting new protections to landowners who open their property to sportsmen and others for recreational purposes.

BY JOSEPH GUINTO
PUBLISHED AUGUST 2007

Like most states, Pennsylvania has a decades-old statute that limits the liability of landowners who offer recreational access to their lands at no charge. States began adopting those laws in part to encourage private landowners to make their properties accessible to the public.

But a high-profile 2004 incident in Pennsylvania may have exposed a loophole in most states’ liability protections-a loophole that Pennsylvania lawmakers quickly closed.

Their action was spurred by a jury decision in September 2006 holding Daniel Haas, the owner of a 140-acre orchard in Lehigh County, 10 percent liable for injuries sustained by Casey Burns, a woman who lived nearby. Burns was in her car, in her driveway, when an errant bullet fired by a deer hunter on Haas’ property hit her in the head. Burns was pregnant at the time. She recovered, and the baby was not hurt, but the shooting caused difficulties prior to and during delivery. The case was settled in February of this year, before the jury deliberated on damages.

The jury’s decision prompted dozens of landowners to close their properties to the public. Lawmakers responded by offering an amendment to the state’s Recreational Use of Land and Water Act. It says landowners who open their properties free of charge will not “assume responsibility for or incur liability for any injury to persons or property, wherever such persons or property are located, caused while hunting.”

For now, that wording is unique among state landowner liability laws. But court-watchers say that may not be the case for long.

How Safe Are the Nation’s Wildlife Refuges?

Joseph Guinto — Sun, 01 Jul 2007 07:00:50 +0000

BY JOSEPH GUINTO
PUBLISHED JULY 2007

The White House accelerated funding for its Healthy Lands Initiative this year, allocating some $3 million to the Bureau of Land Management. The money must be spent on restoring or maintaining natural habitats on federal lands, and more will be made available in 2008.

But the sum isn’t nearly what one lobbying group is seeking for refuges. The Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement (CARE), which unites an array of environmental, hunting, and scientific organizations, wants the budget for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s National Wildlife Refuge System doubled by 2013. CARE has long pushed for more monies to go toward the nation’s wildlife refuges. Yet even with bipartisan support, they’ve won only modest increases. The Fish and Wildlife Service says funding for the refuge system has increased from about $300 million a year in 2001 to $383 million today, but the agency says that’s not enough to keep up with federally mandated raises for employees and deteriorating conditions at many refuges.

CARE agrees. Last spring, the organization released a lengthy report that offered a breakdown of what CARE sees as funding shortfalls for and shabby upkeep at wildlife refuges. The report concludes that the nation’s refuges are at a crisis point. The group wants funding for the National Wildlife Refuge System increased by $55 million next year with continued increases each subsequent year.

Many members of Congress have endorsed CARE’s efforts, including Rep. Jim Saxton (R-New Jersey). Still, at the moment, there is no legislation working its way through the Capitol that would give the refuge system the funding CARE is seeking.

Open Fields Legislation Offers Payments to Landowners

Joseph Guinto — Sun, 01 Jul 2007 07:00:28 +0000

Remember that little place in the woods where you used to get off spectacular hip shots while hunting birds on the wing? Well, there’s a strip mall there now. That’s an increasingly common issue for hunters, whose once-prized spots are being encroached on by urban and suburban sprawl. But some in Congress think they have a way to offset those land losses. Legislation sponsored by Sen. Kent Conrad, D-North Dakota, and Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kansas, would provide $20 million annually to bolster state programs that pay landowners to open their properties to hunters.

BY JOSEPH GUINTO
PUBLISHED JULY 2007

The “Open Fields” legislation has been winding its way through the Capitol since 2003, but it has yet to see a floor vote. That may be about to change. Backers hope to attach Open Fields to the annual farm bill, and that bill is expected to emerge from committees in the House and Senate this month, headed for floor votes.

If Open Fields goes to the floor as well, lawmakers will have to evaluate whether its cost is worth its promise. The cost: $100 million total from 2008 to 2012. The promise: As many as 4 million new acres will open each year to both hunting and fishing enthusiasts. Under Open Fields, the USDA would award grants to state programs that pay landowners to open their properties and make improvements on them that attract more wildlife.

The bill has strong backing from sportsmen’s groups and some conservationists. And backers in Congress are making an economic argument that may connect with their colleagues.

“Anyone who has driven through a rural community in the fall has seen the ‘Welcome Hunters’ signs in front of Main Street restaurants and local motels,” says Rep. Jerry Moran, D-Kansas, and one of Open Fields’ co-sponsors in the House. “This legislation will help ‘ boost rural economies and provide additional income to our farmers and ranchers.”