LAT: Pombo land-grab is STILL IN THE BUDGET BILL that just passed - ACT!!!

[Nothing Without Hope]

We are in big, big trouble, people. The Senate MUST remove this language from the compromise House/Senate budget bill or US national lands are gone forever - and US taxpayers will PAY for giving them away because of the loss of royalties for mineral/oil extraction. And if you think the ANWR drilling proposal is bad, this is MUCH MUCH WORSE!!!! (In fact, it may well trump the ANWR drilling moratorium.)

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-lands19nov19,0,7436968.story?track=tothtml
latimes.com : Opinion : Editorials

LAWS OF THE LAND

Mining for trouble
A PAIR OF DAMAGING environmental proposals have been stripped out of the budget bill before Congress. Thanks to bipartisan opposition, no new oil drilling will be allowed off the nation's coasts or in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
November 19, 2005

Yet an equally troubling provision remains in the bill, placed there by Rep. Richard W. Pombo (R-Tracy), who as head of the House Resources Committee has pushed an extraordinary number of wilderness-trashing ideas this year. This one would allow the government to sell off millions of acres of public land for mining, for as little as $1,000 an acre. The deal comes complete with mineral rights, which are generally worth far more than the land.

Buyers would not need to prove there are minerals in the ground, and the owners have no obligation to try to find them if there are. They could decide to develop the land into a housing development or an office complex, or they could just keep the land for themselves, no public trespassers allowed. The deal includes land in national forests; it also would open up old claims in national parks to mining. These are lands now used for hiking, camping and off-roading — and held by the public for its future. Prospective buyers would need to invest only $7,500 in land surveying or other "mineral development work" to turn these into private lands. Where do we all sign up for a deal this rich, at our own expense?

There's little in this for the budget — or the public. The budget would gain a minimal, one-time boost with each sale, and would suffer the permanent loss of public resources sold at rock-bottom prices.

The budget bill squeaked by the House late Thursday, with this measure attached. It will be up to the Senate-House conference committee to halt the attempted giveaway of public treasures. If that fails, the best recourse would probably be to contribute to groups such as the Nature Conservancy, in the hopes that they will buy up large blocks of land to hold in the public interest. Should that day come, it will sadly mean that public land is safer in the hands of a private organization than in the possession of the government.

(snip)

For background and more info including ACTION PAGES, I URGE you, I BEG you to read this earlier thread about the horror that the extremely corrupt Rep. Pombo (R-CA) slipped into the huge House omnibus budget bill at the last minute, so sly and secret. It is WORSE than ANWR drilling and could well GIVE AWAY at fire sale prices 250 MILLION acres of OUR public land, including national forests, to be gone forever, ravaged or developed. Even minerals or oil extraction could be done with no royalties paid (meaning a huge loss to the US treasury), so we would be in effect PAYING to lose our national lands.

PLEASE READ THIS EARLIER THREAD, including the replies, and ACT!!!! I have to leave my computer for 10 days starting Saturday AM and so can't do this myself - PLEASE!!! This is going under the radar and if made law by the Senate (Bush would certainly sign), the results would be CATASTROPHIC!!!!

Here is the earlier thread of info on the Pombo land-grab in the House budget bill. Now the Senate committee is just about all that stands in the way of this dreadful loss to us all, and to our grandchildren's grandchildren:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5372231
thread title (11/16 GD): PUBLIC LAND GRAB ALERT! LATimes:millions of acres at stake in House bill

Of the major US papers, ONLY the LA Times has been talking about this. Despite long articles discussing the House budget bill and its late-night passage, the Wash Post did not mention this massive land-grab, for example. As I said, it's much worse than the ANWR, and in fact the ANWR might well be susceptible to the very broad provisions of the Pombo amendment.

[H2O Man]

1. Nominated!

We need to make this a #1 Priority during the Thanksgiving Season. We need to consider the value of the public lands. Certainly, in the thousands of years before the pilgrams, all of North America was "public land." And of course, we cannot go back. But we can recognize that even from the days of the pilgrams on, the concept of the public "commons," and then the public parks, and eventually the national parks, has been an important part of our national heritage.

The steps we take in the next ten days will play a crucial role in if we continue with that honorable heritage, or if we surrender what is among our most valuable of national treasures to Halliburton et al.

[Nothing Without Hope]

2. Oh thank heaven you're seeing this, H20 Man! I have to leave it

for ten days - no computer - and that will be too late. Congress' vacation will last only two weeks, and there will be pressure to quickly finish the budget. The Pombo rider might well be slipped in AGAIN, though Sen. Feinstein has asked that it be removed. (see the earlier background/info thread on the Pombo budget rider here - the Feinstein letter is in the OP:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5372231
thread title (11/16 GD): PUBLIC LAND GRAB ALERT! LATimes:millions of acres at stake in House bill

I am so frightened and frustrated because so few seem to be aware of the magnitude of the catastrophe that this legislation would unleash. It would be far worse than ANWR drilling, yet it's slipping in by stealth. Very little - a congressional budget reconciliation committee, principally - stands before potential passage of this monstrous bill.

We CANNOT let this happen!!!!

Now I have to go pack. The plane isn't going to wait while I angst over loss of our national lands.

I'll check back at least once more before I leave.

[H2O Man]

45. Thanksgiving kick. n/t

[H2O Man]

46. Important thread .....

I hope to have more to add tomorrow....

[Nothing Without Hope]

3. I've posted a headsup crosspost on this new thread in Environment/Energy:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x35105
thread title {11/19 E/E): URGENT! The Pombo mega-land-rape is STILL in the passed House budget

[Nothing Without Hope]

4. Nov 10 PRESS RELEASE on the Pombo provision posted at Common Dreams:

Much more on the Environmental Working Group and action possibilities in the earlier thread (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5372231 )

http://www.commondreams.org/news2005/1110-09.htm
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
NOVEMBER 10, 2005
1:31 PM

CONTACT: Environmental Working Group (http://www.ewg.org )
EWG Public Affairs, [phone]

House Votes Today on Budget Package Including Worst Land Grab in American History
Pombo Provision Would Sell Off 350 Million Acres of Taxpayers’ Public Lands

WASHINGTON - November 10 - The House of Representatives votes today on a federal spending bill with language from Rep. Richard Pombo (R-CA) that will let foreign mining companies, real estate speculators, oil and mining conglomerates, or anyone else purchase up to 350 million acres of American taxpayers’ lands for as little as $1,000 per acre.

Environmental Working Group (EWG) has analyzed the national parks, forests, wilderness areas and other natural treasures at risk in 13 western states (www.ewg.org/reports/dirtcheap/). Among the lands Rep. Pombo’s proposal puts up for sale are areas in or near Yosemite, Yellowstone, Death Valley and Grand Canyon national parks, some of America’s last, best wild places.

Bipartisan opposition over Pombo’s land sale has grown, with Rep. Chris Shays (R-CT) asking House Rules Committee Chairman Rep. David Dreier (R-CA) to strip the Pombo provision from the spending bill.

“We’re cutting food stamps, student loans and Medicaid to deal with our skyrocketing federal deficit, but Congress is still considering Richard Pombo’s costly special interest giveaway of priceless public lands at rock-bottom prices,” Richard Wiles, EWG’s senior vice president, said. “With no hearings or even a minute of legislative oversight, this outrageous deal treats taxpayers’ lands like an ATM machine for anyone who wants to build a subdivision, strip mall or mining operation on our most valuable lands.”

[Nothing Without Hope]

5. More in Oct 26 PRESS RELEASE from Environmental Working Group:

And this does not count the NEW CLAIMS that can be made - and unlike even the bad earlier legislation that was overturned, they don't even have to prove that valuable minerals are present.

http://www.ewg.org/issues/publiclands/20051031/index.php
For Immediate Release: October 26, 2005
Contact: EWG Public Affairs, [phone]

Congressional Committee Votes to Put 5.7 Million Acres of Public Land Up for Sale

Bill could hand over 270 million acres
to mining corporations

Foreign corporations top the list of likely purchasers

(WASHINGTON, Oct. 26) — If Congressman Richard Pombo and House Republicans have their way, well over 5 million acres of mining claims across the West will be up for sale, in what could become one of the largest land giveaways in U.S. history. Mining and other development on these lands would threaten hundreds of America's most treasured natural places.

Mining claims currently can be staked on as many as 270 million acres of public land in the 13 western states. Until 1994, when the Clinton administration put a halt on new land purchases, companies that struck gold or other metals on their claims could simply buy that land at prices set by the Congress in 1872, and make millions on what was previously public property.

Today the House Resources Committee passed a proposal by Chairman Richard Pombo to overturn the Clinton ban on purchasing these mining lands and put 5.7 million acres of public lands up for sale in 13 western states.

"Chairman Pombo wants to sell the American West to foreign mining corporations, and anyone else who can pay a fraction of market value for the land," said Dusty Horwitt, analyst for Environmental Working Group (EWG). "If Pombo's bill passes, America's treasured natural heritage will be for sale to anyone who wants to buy it."

EWG's interactive maps of corporate hold over public lands, available at http://www.ewg.org/mining/claims/index.php/ and http://www.ewg.org/reports/losingground/, show that 5.7 million acres of taxpayer lands could be sold immediately if Pombo's plan succeeds.

The following is a state-by-state summary of the currently claimed acres that could be privatized upon passage of Pombo's legislation (figures are current as of 2004):

Alaska: at least 196,408 acres.
Arizona: 641,883 acres, including 10 claims within five miles of Grand Canyon National Park and nine claims within five miles of Saguaro National Park.
California: 635,225 acres, including 360 claims within five miles of Joshua Tree National Park.
Colorado: 123,457 acres, including one claim within five miles of Rocky Mountain National Park and eight claims within five miles of Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park.
Idaho: 260,185 acres.
Montana: 245,869 acres, including 20 claims within five miles of Yellowstone National Park.
Nevada: 2,508,276 acres, including 1,206 claims within five miles of Death Valley National Park (on both Nevada and California sides).
New Mexico: 170,231 acres, including 44 claims within five miles of Carlsbad Caverns National Park.
Oregon: 191,391 acres.
South Dakota: 22,036 acres, including four claims within five miles of Wind Cave National Park.
Utah: 367,244 acres, including 20 claims within five miles of Canyonlands National Park and seven claims within five miles of Arches National Park.
Washington: 50,632 acres, including five claims within five miles of Mt. Rainier National Park.
Wyoming: 353,499 acres, including eight claims within five miles of Grand Teton National Park.
Grand total: at least 5,766,000 acres.
###

EWG is a nonprofit research group based in Washington, D.C., that uses the power of information to protect human health and the environment. The group's research on public lands is available at http://www.ewg.org/issues/siteindex/issues.php?issueid=5020.

[jeffreyi]

21. Another kick

Would just as soon this one is pinned!

[Nothing Without Hope]

6. Nov 14 Trouthout article: "Pombo's Poison Pills"

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/111405A.shtml

Pombo's Poison Pills

Kelpie Wilson
t r u t h o u t | Perspective

Monday 14 November 2005

(snip)

But there is a lot more at stake for the environment than the oil drilling deals. Buried in the bowels of the bill is a stunning Pombo poison pill - one of the biggest land grabs in history.

Disguised as a modification to mining law, it would allow developers to purchase any public land with minerals on it for their own private use. According to the Environmental Working Group, if passed it would immediately put 5.7 million acres of public lands with existing mining claims up for sale, including more than 2 million acres inside or adjacent to national parks, wilderness areas, wildlife refuges and other environmental and cultural treasures.

Over time, Pombo's giveaway could transfer as many as 350 million acres of public lands to private ownership.

Last month, Pombo floated a proposal to sell off 23 percent of the national park system, including, ironically, a Teddy Roosevelt memorial, in order to balance the deficit. He passed it off as an attention-getting joke, but this latest proposal is deadly serious.

(snip - much more)

[Nothing Without Hope]

7. I've got to go now - much much more on the Pombo land-rape in the

earlier thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5372231
thread title (11/16 GD): PUBLIC LAND GRAB ALERT! LATimes:millions of acres at stake in House bill

We MUST defeat this. And right now, far too few people even know about it. Time is running out. Congress will come back from vacation in 2 weeks and they will want to pass a compromise budget quickly. The Pombo provision is still in the House version and except for the LA Times, almost no national papers have even talked about it.

[Nothing Without Hope]

8. PLEASE, people - THIS IS AN URGENT PRIORITY and it is being ignored

by almost everyone. It could easily become law when Congress reconvenes in two weeks.

Your grandchildren's grandchildren will know how devastating it was if it passes.

I have to leave for a trip away from my computer - gone 10 days - so worried that this is sailing under the radar. :banghead:

If you care about ANWR drilling - I promise you, this would be MUCH WORSE!!!!

[lonestarnot]

11. I for one am not ignoring!

[H2O Man]

12. Great!

Maybe we can organize a DU- Subcommittee to advocate for a coordinated effort on this. I will be willing to invest time in such an effort.

[lonestarnot]

13. We are preparing a welcome wagon for bushitler visit here in AZ for

28th, so I don't have much time for about a week.

[druidity33]

16. i can make time...

but the 4 year old child takes precedence, and i'm not entirely sure how i can directly help... but i will invest what time i can. I live in Western Mass, i'm a photographer and graphic artist (GOOD at photoshopping). I am already crafting a letter for my local papers, but any other ideas for activism would be appreciated! Thank you H2O Man for picking up the ball!

[jeffreyi]

18. Count me in

I'm off this week, can put in some time. This is so completely, pustulantly, toxic.

[druidity33]

34. noticed a NY Times article today

the 20th which details the Pombo amendment and the damage it can do... but it was buried near the obits, last page second section, under the fold, corner. The title of the piece is "Federal Lands in Doubt" by Kirk Johnson and Felicity Barringer. I should say I get a Sunday Paper from the Springfield Republican (western Mass), but the article is attributed to the Times.
Is this the extent of the coverage this will get?

[H2O Man]

35. Hopefully my son will

bring me the NYT this morning.

I think we should look for linkages with other environmental advocacy groups on this. Our job is to increase awareness of this in the corporate media. Our best chance is LTTEs at this point.

[Greyhound]

9. K & R

[understandinglife]

10. K&R. And, a request has been sent to Skinner to consider a DU Activist ...

... effort focused on this issue.


Peace.

[Lorien]

14. It's sickening that the vast majority of DUers don't give a sh*t

they, like repugs, think that this issue is less important than so many others ("who cares about a bunch of wolves and ivy when people are dying in Iraq" as one wrote a while back). Our natural treasures have intrinsic worth, just as human lives have intrinsic worth. Humanity relies on a functioning ecosystem to survive, and the Pombo land grab would destroy much of what's remaining in this country-which in turn will cause more faster global warming, more storms, etc. If you are one of those who won't act because all other life forms are unimportant to you, then please; act for the sake of humanity!

[montana500]

31. those people don't understand

That national forest lands provide 60 million Americans with clean drinking water. They also act as "air purifiers" for our countries air. They also are huge financial bons to local communities. They shelter the most rae wildlife in our nation, and offer the best fishing, hunting, hiking, rafting and outdoor family experiences in the nationa *bar none*.

It's just as important as Iraq, if not more so.

What would these people say if someone wanted to ruin the Washington Monument or the Statue of Liberty? It's the same exact thing.

[H2O Man]

15. A short story......

I was taught this as a boy. It's an old Iroquois story, called a "grandparents' story, because it is intended to teach from generation to generation.

There once was a young man and a path he was supposed to follow. He was sure that there was plenty of time to follow this path, and so he spent some time doing other things that seemed very important at the time. Then, when he finally thought it would be a good day to follow that path, he found that it was over-grown, and that he could no longer find it.

Perhaps we need to update the story. If we don't follow the path set out here, today, to take steps to protect the these public lands, we will soon find that they have been clear-cut, bulldozed, drilled, and developed.

[Nothing Without Hope]

17. So glad you're picking this up! Suggestion: write up a list of talking

points and articles (in the two theads) and send it to Keith Olbermann: [e-mail]

So much the better if you can find the exact language in the Budget bill that corresponds to the Pombo Provision and send that too, but if that's not possible then still send it.

The KOEB Group might help with this:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=315

If this is seen on TV networks, it could jump-start visibility. In any case media- and congress-blasting with documented talking points has to be part of the attack anyway. Some good talking points in some of the excerpts in the older Pombo Provision thread, but none of them get all the important ones.

There are knowledgeable spokespeople in the articles and at the sites in the other thread. The author of previous LAT article is as expert as they come - he might help:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5372231&mesg_id=5390773

Some of the repliers in the earlier thread were enthusiastic and might want to help if PMed about the opportunity. Damn - I wish my trip were some other time!

Back to packing and last-minute errands. Good luck to us all!

[glitch]

19. K&R this is damage we will be unable to recover from in our lifetimes

Or our children's. Or their's, or even their's. It's irreversible.

These fools think our planet is disposable.

[blindpig]

20. I'm in.

Please inform me what I can do, my reps are evil and wrong(SC), when I contacted them concerning Pombo's ESA abomination I recieved form letters explaining how wonderful it was:mad:!

[senaca]

22. kick n/t

[Nothing Without Hope]

23. The ranking DEM on Pombo's Resource committee should be able to give

us the exact language of Pombo's rider - that's important because we need to know what we are talking about. That's Rep. Nick Rahall. Maybe an aide in his office could do it. They might also be able to advise us on who to call for best effect in changing minds.

A Nov 3 Press Release from Rep. Rahall's office about the Pombo Provision:

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/ii00_democrats/budgetmininglaw.html


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Kristen Bossi
November 3, 2005 [phone]

SHAM MINING LAW REFORM ADVANCES

Rahall: "This is the worst kind of sham reform of the Mining Law ever to be promoted in my tenure in Congress."

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Sham reform of the Mining Law of 1872 that would allow public lands to be sold for an arbitrary fee for oil and gas or real estate development moves one step closer to consideration by the House of Representatives as the House Budget Committee approved the proposal, decried Resources Committee Ranking Democrat Nick J. Rahall.
"If enacted, this proposal would result in a blazing fire sale of federal lands to domestic and international corporate interests. This is the worst kind of sham reform of the Mining Law ever to be promoted in my tenure in Congress. It is actually a step backward from the horrendously outdated 133-year-old statute now in force," declared Rahall.

He continued, "This provision would allow the sale of potentially mineral rich public lands for the mere cost of the surface estate, completely ignoring the value to the underlying mineral estate. Under these provisions anyone, including real estate developers and oil and gas companies, could purchase and develop natural areas that are currently important for recreation, wildlife, fisheries, or regional drinking water supplies under the guise of a mining law."

The proposal does not protect National Forests and Wilderness Study Areas, Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, or other similar areas, from development. To purchase the land, the buyer must only claim the intention to facilitate "sustainable economic development" - - an undefined term.

"Sustainable economic development could include condominium construction, ski resorts, gaming casinos, you name it, flying in the face of America’s commitment to protect these lands," asserted Rahall.

Signed into law by President Ulysses S. Grant, the Mining Law of 1872 to this day governs the mining of valuable ‘hardrock’ minerals, such as gold and silver, on federal western public lands. The law allows private companies to patent - - purchase - - public lands containing valuable minerals for a mere $2.50 to $5.00 per acre, prices set in 1872, without paying a royalty - - production fee - - on the mining of these minerals to the taxpayer. Since 1872, more than $245 billion worth of minerals have been extracted from public lands at these bargain-basement prices.

Since 1994, through Rahall’s efforts with strong bipartisan support, Congress has placed an annual moratorium on the patenting of mining claims on federal lands. To prohibit the continued giveaway of public lands while requiring industry to comply with some basic reclamation standards, Rahall, last month, introduced the "Federal Mineral Development and Land Protection Equity Act of 2005". Since 1987, when Rahall chaired the Energy and Minerals Subcommittee, he has worked to rewrite this antiquated law, introducing comprehensive reform bills in each successive Congress.

"Instead of acting on my bipartisan legislation that would prohibit the giveaways of our public lands at bargain basement prices with no meaningful environmental safeguards, the budget reconciliation process is being used as a Trojan horse to sell off the public’s assets," stated Rahall.

Rahall’s legislation would impose an 8% royalty on mineral production, raising $350 million over the next five years, and will continue to generate funds for the Treasury as long as resources are mined. The budget reconciliation proposal raises less than half that amount in a one-time sale of these assets.

"As a long-time advocate of responsible reform of the Mining Law of 1872, after reflecting on these provisions, I find it hard to believe that they would even be supported by responsible elements in the hardrock mining industry. Further, they represent an assault on America’s natural resource heritage and to the American taxpayer. And given my history on this issue, I find them personally insulting as well," concluded Rahall.

For the full text of Rahall's remarks inserted into the Congressional Record, click here: (http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/ii00_democrats/mininglawcrremarks.pdf ).

[chat_noir]

24. Question on Clinton's Monuments Designations

Can anyone discuss these two issues? I'm not politically-/environmentally-savvy enough to do so.

Although the land covered by the proposals is owned by the U.S. government, a national monument designation would ban mining, timber cutting or other large-scale development, limiting the income of many area residents involved in those industries.

The White House says the purpose of the monument designation is to protect unique natural, scientific and historic features in each of the sites.

While environmentalists have applauded the move, saying it would protect land amid the rapid expansion of the Southwest, Republican lawmakers and some business interests have attacked it.

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/NATURE/01/11/grand.canyon.02/

Clinton Monument Designations to Remain

The Bush administration will not seek to overturn any of President Bill Clinton's designations of millions of acres of federal land as national monuments, The Washington Post reported Wednesday.

"I certainly disapprove of the process by which those monuments were generally created," said Interior Secretary Gale Norton. "But I have not yet heard any calls to repeal any of the monument designations."

Norton told the newspaper that the administration, western lawmakers and private property owners likely will attempt to adjust the rules governing commercial activities within them. She said there would be no organized attempt to roll back Clinton's designations.

http://www.evote.com/index.asp?Page=/news_section/2001-04/archive.asp


http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=HPIC,HPIC:2005-21,HPIC:en&q=Clinton+Monument+Designations

[OnionPatch]

25. I called my congressman a few days ago about this

but I'd bet the farm the SOB voted for it. (Worthless piece of sh** Jerry Lewis...moron rep of CA 41st district) Is there somewhere I can see the who voted on this to make sure?

What else can we do other than calling? I'm outraged at this. Some of those lands are places I actually go and play! (Near Joshua Tree Nat. Park) :mad:

[Nothing Without Hope]

26. YES!!!! I FOUND A PDF FILE OF THE FULL TEXT OF POMBO's RIDER:

http://www.bettermines.org/pubs/PomboText_postmarkup.pdf

This and much more are at this excellent summary/action page:
http://www.bettermines.org/pombo.cfm

Gives updates, talking points, and links to all sorts of information and related material. This is - pardon the expression given the context, a gold mine!!!

And here's the Environmental Working Group's Press page - just a bit out of date right now but very helpful:
http://www.ewg.org/news/eclips.php?reportid=299

[Nothing Without Hope]

27. Here's an article with more details including how the GOPs will

try to say the provision only would affect very small amounts of land. NOT TRUE!!!

http://www.ewg.org/news/story.php?id=4665
EWG in the News
America's Lands in Speculators' Hands
From EWG's report Dirt Cheap: http://www.ewg.org/reports/dirtcheap

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Group fears sale of Black Hills land

But spokesman for House panel says bill doesn't mean run on private development

By: Ben Shouse
Sioux Falls Argus Leader
November 15, 2005

(snip)

But he said he was not familiar enough with the bill to comment on Section 6204.

That section would allow anyone to buy public land that has already been mined in order to develop it, according to Flynn.

It reads, in part: "Notwithstanding any other provision of law ... the Secretary of the Interior shall make mineral deposits and the lands that contain them, including lands in which the valuable mineral deposit has been depleted, available for purchase to facilitate sustainable economic development."

Flynn said that effectively removes the requirement that the land have "valuable mineral deposits."

(snip)

OK, now I really, really have to go. See you in 10 days - unless I can find a computer where I'm going. Good luck, for all our sakes!

[senaca]

33. national land/states rights

Is there anything that a state legislature could do as it could affect their water supplies environmentally. I'm grasping at straws here, but what about notifying fishing clubs, hiking clubs, hunting clubs etc locally about the Pombo amendment.

[H2O Man]

44. That's a good idea.

I think that there has been substantial opposition to the planned give-away of the national treasures by hunting & fishing groups. For many years, environmental attorney Robert Kennedy Jr. has urged people on the democratic left to recognize that they have a natural ally in the hunters and fishermen. Over the years, I have been able to establish a good working relationship with the local chapters in my area. When I've contacted them regarding the Pombo amendment, I find they are already fully aware and very active.

The hiking groups are a growing interest. In rural upstate New York, there are a surprising number of these. Often, they include a good number of "city folk" who have relocated, and really appreciate the open trails that allow people to find a connection to the natural world. I like your idea, because I know the potential for organizing that such groups have. The linkages between the rural and urban is kind of like that between environmentalists and hunters. We have more in common than may be apparent at the surface level.

[montana500]

28. this should be stickied

KICK

[ismnotwasm]

29. Kick n/t

[undergroundpanther]

30. I sent it to Unknown News with a comment

Spreading the Info!

[OregonBlue]

32. Email House Resources Committee. Address is

[e-mail]

Repugs

Don Young, AK
Barbara Cubin, WY
Chris Cannon, UT
John E. Peterson, PA
Stevan Pearce, NM
Thelma Drake, VA
Bobby Jindal, LA
Louie Gohmert, TX
Richard W. Pombo, CA, ex officio

Dems

Eni Faleomavaega, AS
Solomon Ortiz, TX
Jim Costa, CA
Charlie Mellancon, LA
Dan Boren, OK
Ed Markey, MA
Nick Rahall, II, WV ex officio

Mr Jim Gibbons, Nevada, Chairman
Mr. Raul Grijalva, AZ

BOMBARD THIS SITE WITH YOUR PROTESTS!!!!!!! LET THEM KNOW THEY WILL NOT BE RE-ELECTED IF ATTEMPT TO STEAL PUBLIC PROPERTY IS NOT STOPPED.

[senaca]

36. kick n/t

[OregonBlue]

37. Thanks. We need to make a big stink. For some reason they're

holding back. Something they know that we don't? If they don't get this out there soon, it will be too late to change 2006 election machines!!

[montana500]

38. yep

nm

[blindpig]

39. morning kick

[jeffreyi]

40. Sent this to a several places over the weekend;

High Country News responded; they are on it. Is there an activist forum or something for those of us who are wanting to do something?

thanks.

[IkeWarnedUs]

41. If the Senate doesn't block this

If we are unable to stop this in the Senate, maybe we could buy the land.


"Buyers would not need to prove there are minerals in the ground, and the owners have no obligation to try to find them if there are. They could decide to develop the land into a housing development or an office complex, or they could just keep the land for themselves, no public trespassers allowed. The deal includes land in national forests; it also would open up old claims in national parks to mining. These are lands now used for hiking, camping and off-roading — and held by the public for its future. Prospective buyers would need to invest only $7,500 in land surveying or other "mineral development work" to turn these into private lands. Where do we all sign up for a deal this rich, at our own expense?"


I don't mean we as in DU - I'm thinking about an organization formed for the purpose of buying the land, maybe backed by some deep pockets like Soros and/or Gates. From the sound of it, the new org would have to be able to buy not just the land, but also the $7,500 investment (per parcel? per buyer? per acre?).

Anyone know how the buyers are chosen?

[JPZenger]

42. Recent Stories on Federal Lands Give-away

http://www.grist.org/news/muck/2005/11/17/land-sale/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/09/AR2005110902048.html
(this same measure could kill a redevelopment effort in one of the most depressed parts of Washington D.C.)

http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096411900
(Native American tribes afraid the give away may affect their lands)

http://www.truthout.org/issues_05/102705EC.shtml

http://www.net.org/proactive/newsroom/release.vtml?id=29040

[blindpig]

43. Give thanks for your National parks, forests, monuments

while you still can.

And thank those fighting to preserve them.