Grand Junction Daily Sentinel

Hurd gives mixed signals on public lands selloff

We appreciate U.S. Rep. Jeff Hurd’s opposition last week to an 11th-hour provision in the House Republicans’ sweeping tax cut package authorizing sales of more than 500,000 acres of public land in Nevada and Utah.

Hurd’s district includes massive tracts of public land. Constituents have sent a clear message they appreciate these lands are managed by the federal government for the public’s benefit and he deserves credit for bucking his party’s line on a controversial issue.

Still, he voted for the final proposal of the House Natural Resources Committee’s budget reconciliation bill, which includes the selloff provision and measures that roll back environmental protections, including those in Bureau of Land Management resource plans in western Colorado.

Hurd can’t have it both ways. If he’s serious about keeping public lands in public hands, he must tell House leadership that he won’t support the final budget bill unless the land sales proposal is removed.

But Hurd’s no absolutist and we’re willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. He may have to be selective as part of a larger strategy to preserve public lands over the long haul.

He has signaled, though, that he’s not opposed to selling public land — as long as a proposal has public support.

“When it comes to these federal land decisions, we should have the input and engagement of the individuals who are affected by these decisions,” Hurd told the Sentinel. “I was concerned that this amendment didn’t adequately reflect that input and agreement and buy-in from the local stakeholders. When I campaigned for office, that was a fundamental principle. I don’t believe the government should be imposing top-down land management decisions on federal lands that affect communities — in my district or in others.”

But Hurd has introduced legislation to overturn Bureau of Land Management resource management plans (RMPs) that reflect input and agreement and buy-in from local stakeholders. Isn’t revoking a process driven by local stakeholders a top-down land management decision? It’s tough to reconcile the inconsistencies.

Further, Hurd’s contention that land management decisions need local buy-in overlooks the fact that public lands are owned by all Americans, not just those in close proximity to them.

Hurd has been a stalwart supporter of Trump’s “energy dominance” agenda. He campaigned on eliminating obstacles to energy production and maximizing resource extraction on public lands. The House Natural Resources Committee budget proposal does that and Hurd can support it in good conscience. But if he wants to stand on the principle that he’s not for selling off large-scale chunks of public land, he needs to fight for stripping the selloff provision out of the bill.

Critics of the provision, known as the Amodei amendment, say it has no public-purpose requirement and no restrictions on use. In other words, the lands in question can be developed with no guarantee of responsible development, conservation balance or assurance the proceeds will benefit local communities.

But the bigger fear is that a public lands selloff, no matter how limited in scope now, kicks the door wide open for future, bigger selloffs in the name of affordable housing, reducing the national debt or some other administrative priority. Moreover it offers a blueprint for how to do it — by laundering unpopular selloffs into massive budget bills at a late hour with minimal notice instead of introducing stand-alone bills that get more scrutiny under regular order.

Hurd is a freshman lawmaker, still getting a feel for the district’s priorities. He’s made overtures that public lands and Medicaid are important to him because they’re important to the district. But the proof will be in how he votes on the final budget bill.

He must know his stance on selling public lands is confusing. He must also know the district’s patience for clarity is growing thin.