Discussion · Senate
Martin Heinrich Democrat
“I object to this bill. It gives federal public land to North Dakota without giving the public equal land or money in return. It also lets the state pick which land to take without a public review.”
“Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I am actually pretty sympathetic to the land management challenges in the West that have come from a history of public land disposal and development, but I cannot support the approach this bill takes transferring public land to a State without a fair exchange for the public. Under the bill, if the State of North Dakota transferred State land to a Tribe, the State could then select Bureau of Land Management public land to replace them. The public would not receive any land or compensation in return for the land transferred to the State. What is more, the bill doesn’t specify which public land would be transferred out of public hands. It would allow the State to select any BLM-managed public land in North Dakota that hasn’t already been set aside. Land exchanges are an important tool for western public land management. I get that. I have supported many land exchanges in New Mexico and many other States, but land exchanges need to include a public process to determine which parcels are being exchanged. They must be in the public interest and be of equal value for the public and the other parties. I am willing to work with my colleague from North Dakota to find a solution to the State lands within Indian reservations in his State, but the solution can’t be simply giving away our public land, especially when we don’t know even which lands would be transferred away. I hope we can work together to find a different path forward on this issue but as the bill is currently drafted, I must object.”
-
Speech in the House
Reasoning 100 of 100
This statement drew 5 conclusions and gave a reason for each one.
See full analysis
Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I am actually pretty sympathetic to the land management challenges in the West that have come from a history of public land disposal and development, but I cannot support the approach this bill takes transferring public land to a State without a fair exchange for the public. Under the bill, if the State of North Dakota transferred State land to a Tribe, the State could then select Bureau of Land Management public land to replace them. The public would not receive any land or compensation in return for the land transferred to the State. What is more, the bill doesn’t specify which public land would be transferred out of public hands. It would allow the State to select any BLM-managed public land in North Dakota that hasn’t already been set aside. Land exchanges are an important tool for western public land management. I get that. I have supported many land exchanges in New Mexico and many other States, but land exchanges need to include a public process to determine which parcels are being exchanged. They must be in the public interest and be of equal value for the public and the other parties. I am willing to work with my colleague from North Dakota to find a solution to the State lands within Indian reservations in his State, but the solution can’t be simply giving away our public land, especially when we don’t know even which lands would be transferred away. I hope we can work together to find a different path forward on this issue but as the bill is currently drafted, I must object.