It was one of those middle-of-the-night congressional votes where the devil is in the details.
Early Friday, the U.S. House of Representatives approved a voluminous five-year budget plan that among untold other things gave the Interior Department a green light to sell off some of the West’s most scenic lands.
Colorado’s four Republican members could have staved off this land grab, but they voted with the majority that gave 217-215 approval to a controversial budget bill that would let mining companies buy public land again in the Rocky Mountain West.
Another provision of the bill seeks to speed up Western oil-shale development, approving shortsighted provisions that would curtail consultation with state and local officials, limit environmental reviews and lower producers’ royalty obligations.
The legislation lifts an 11-year moratorium on mining “patents,” the sale of public land to mining companies.
Seems fair enough, except that the measure also removes requirements that those buying the land actually use it for mining. That loophole opens up millions of acres of public land to real estate speculation, as long as there is some connection to mining or is adjacent to such land.
Some of the most beautiful areas of Colorado, such as Breckenridge, Aspen and Telluride, started off as mining towns. Much of the public land surrounding those resort areas is littered with old mining claims.
No one wants to see lots more trophy homes or mazes of condominiums spoiling Colorado’s most scenic vistas.
We urge Colorado Sens. Wayne Allard and Ken Salazar to lead the Senate charge in nixing this land grab.
The Senate version of this particular budget bill doesn’t include the mining changes, and we hope this language disappears when the two chambers iron out their differences in a conference committee next month, after Congress comes back from the Thanksgiving break.
The House budget bill also seeks to speed up shale development in the areas where some 1.8 trillion barrels of oil shale may lie beneath northwestern Colorado and parts of Utah and Wyoming.
This enormous reserve holds great promise – in theory – but shale needs to developed with care for the surface environment and nearby communities, not to mention the West’s water.
A workable compromise was reached earlier this fall when Congress asked the Bureau of Land Management to do a comprehensive environmental study, intensively consult with state and local governments and seek public comment before issuing oil shale leases. The 18-month study period was a bit short for our taste, but that’s what compromise is all about.
But the House now is proposing to seriously reduce the level of input from citizens and state and local governments to far less than what was envisioned under the compromise.
Advocates may believe that oil shale can be converted into liquid fuel to supplement traditional gasoline and diesel supplies any day now. But the truth is that technology has not advanced enough to allow for commercial production anytime soon.
Shell Oil is researching new, in-ground extraction processes that could have less environmental impact and require less water than older technologies. But Shell says its technology is years away and that it’s going to take the rest of the decade just for research and testing.
So, there’s simply no need for any rush to open up 2.5 million acres of public lands for oil shale development right now.
There is a sensible way to develop Colorado’s resources, but this isn’t it.
