Healthy wildlife habitat, clean air and water, strong rural economies, and fiscal responsibility by our government. Who can argue about these things? Not me, and not most Americans. In fact, a recent poll conducted by a prominent Republican pollster for the National Wildlife Federation, confirmed that Westerners overwhelmingly support all these things.
Over the past couple of years, wise energy development policies were enacted that support the above-mentioned values. One was to raise royalties and rental rates paid by energy developers to bring them up to fair market value. Another was to increase bonding rates so that when there are spills or energy companies go bankrupt, taxpayers aren’t on the hook for cleaning up degraded lands. Another policy was to ensure that energy development steers clear of lands with important and sensitive wildlife habitat – think migration corridors or severe winter range. And last, new procedures to avoid leasing lands that have low or no potential for development. When low or no potential lands are nominated for leasing, they still require analysis and processing by federal agencies, which cost time and money – even though they are very likely to never be developed. It simply doesn’t make sense to spend limited staff time and resources on leasing these lands.
The recent National Wildlife Federation poll reminded us of what we’ve known for a long time: People love America’s public lands, and they want to make sure they remain viable and healthy so that future generations can enjoy them like we do today. In addition, the poll found that the oil and gas leasing reforms are very popular with the public. For instance, 81% of those polled in Colorado believed that the current royalty rates should remain; 89% agreed we should keep the updated bonding rates; 74% or more of respondents agreed on several questions surrounding public engagement, agreeing that the public should have a say on what happens regarding development on public lands. And overwhelmingly – to the tune of 98% and 99% for each – respondents supported maintaining wildlife habitat, keeping our air and water clean, and conserving areas for future generations.
Unfortunately, in the Reconciliation bill just passed by the U.S. House of Representatives, nearly all these common sense measures would be rescinded. Noncompetitive lease sales would return; royalty rates would be reduced; the Coastal Plain of Alaska (some for the most intact ecosystems on Earth) would be reopened to drilling; numerous Resource Management Plans for Western BLM lands – the result of many years of careful planning and public engagement – would be rescinded; environmental review would be reduced; and bonding rates would be reduced.
These proposals are the opposite of what most of the public want, will cost taxpayers money and will result in the degradation of landscapes across the country. At a time when Congress is looking more deeply than it has in a good while at balancing the budget, doesn’t it make sense to keep these highly popular and money-saving reforms in place?
As a lifelong Westerner, I understand the need for energy development. When done responsibly, we can indeed generate needed energy resources and revenue, but we don’t have to sacrifice other economies, fish and wildlife, or our way of life to get the resources we need.
Let’s not misrepresent and rescind highly popular and fiscally responsible polices that generate revenue while simultaneously supporting and maintaining Western values.
At a time when we sorely need unique solutions and issues we can rally around as country, Congress is attempting to do just the opposite, and at the expense of things we all care deeply about – open, abundant and healthy public lands. Congress should scrap these unwise efforts to dismantle widely supported, common sense solutions that responsibly manage energy development on public lands.
Aaron Kindle is director of sporting advocacy for the National Wildlife Federation. He lives in Salida.
