THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
An Online Journal of Political Commentary & Analysis
Volume VI, Issue # 50, March 10, 2004
Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr., Editor
Government Committed to & Acting in Accord with Conservative Principles
Ensures a Nation's Strength, Progress, & Prosperity
HIGHLANDS CONSERVATION ACT: STEALING PRIVATE PROPERTY WITH PUBLIC DOLLARS
By Cheryl K. Chumley
Just when you thought you had a handle on the maneuvers of environmentalists and the politicians who pander to these anti-private
property activists, now comes a new stealth measure aimed at taking even more of your land.
Presented as a friendly partnership plan for necessary preservation of clean drinking water reservoirs, wildlife habitat and endangered
species, the Highlands Conservation Act (H.R. 1964) is actually a carefully crafted, multi-layered, insidious hoax that spits on the
United States Constitution and in the faces of freedom-seeking Americans nationwide.
If left unchecked, this $100 million-plus bill or its companion Senate version (S. 999), which is even worse, will become the
steppingstone for greater power to the Greens.
The way it works is this: Governors in Connecticut, Pennsylvania, New York and New Jersey identify which lands in the two million
acre Highlands region should be taken from private control and placed under government jurisdiction. The Secretaries of the
Interior and Agriculture Departments pass along these targeted land grab suggestions to members of Congress. They in turn give
their stamp of approval on funding the socalled necessary conservation actions with 50% matching federal dollars, up to $10 million
annually from 2005-2014 with general Treasury or Land and Water Conservation Fund disbursements.
This is the new and supposed friendly partnership aspect of the bill that the federal land bureaucracies assume -- the more humble
role of financial provider, leaving the “non-federal” entities (also known as non-governmental organizations, or NGOs, all with
political agendas) in charge of identifying which properties to purchase and manage. Comparatively meeker to past land management
measures as this federal involvement may sound, deeper analysis reveals several hidden agendas at play.
Do you think, for instance, that the governors of these four states, when faced with the tempting opportunity to receive millions of
taxpayer dollars, will show restraint when it comes to identifying land parcels for preservation? The nature of the political beast says
no: The history of these four states’ involvement with H.R. 1964 proves otherwise, too.
Connecticut and Pennsylvania, while listed in the bill as Highlands states, were never formally included in the USDA Forest Service’s
official land assessment studies conducted in 1992 and 2002.
That these two states were added to H.R. 1964 stems primarily from the findings of their own open space and green plans which,
happily for all involved, coincided with the Forest Service’s 2002 formal findings that “longterm sustainability” of the Highlands
depends upon the ability of land management efforts to “span local and even state political boundaries.” Research indicates a wide
range of environmental groups, from the Sierra Club to the Highlands Coalition, had a heavy hand in helping Connecticut and
Pennsylvania politicians develop these land use plans that were added to the Forest Service studies cited in this bill as evidence of
the region’s “national significance.”
So, what if politicians in Maryland and Vermont decide they want a piece of the federal money pie, too? The Highlands region is
already mapped as a connecting corridor of land, Wildlands Project style, that extends from eastern Pennsylvania through New
Jersey and New York to northwestern Connecticut, adjacent to 15 parcels of federally protected property. It wouldn’t take much
effort on the part of environmentalists to convince Congress of the “nationally significant” need to extend the lines of land
acquisition a bit further to offer Vermont and Maryland similar partnership perks as awarded the four states in H.R. 1964.
The friendly Forest Service certainly won’t oppose extension of “non-federal” or NGO control of Highlands property. While the bill
maintains this agency will only assume an advisory role to “local government, individual landowners, and private organizations in
identifying” lands for conservation, and grants an extra $1 million each year to cover the costs of these duties, the Forest Service’s
own 2002 study offers a different understanding of its authority.
The Forest Service ought to “continue (its) leadership role in land management in the Highlands and in implementing these strategies”
by “modifying or creating authority and processes necessary for governance and decision making,” the agency’s “New York-New
Jersey Highlands Regional Study: 2002 Update” states.
That sounds a bit like a plan for ultimate Forest Service control of the Highlands area. And with H.R. 1964 granting the agency the
right to “undertake other studies and research as appropriate,” it also sounds a bit like the doors opening to land acquisitions and
government management in other states, regardless of the bill’s socalled guarantee of private property protections and non-federal
authority.
“Socalled” is the key phrase here: The private property protection section of the bill says appropriations “shall be used to purchase
lands or interests in lands only from willing sellers.” Sounds non-threatening enough, right? But unfortunately, the entire notion of
the willing seller is a joke.
By and large, property owners do not understand the intense pressure well-funded conservation groups create on local politicians to
acquire land or the complex maze of collaborations and partnerships the NGOs form to achieve these ends.
Buying small parcels here, winning over a few landowners there, these radical conservationists slowly increase the amount of acreage
off limits for human use. The landowners who hesitate or refuse to sell become surrounded by these public properties and find the
restrictions placed on the managed lands now trickle over the boundaries onto the lands of the private landowners, who often lose
water rights, access road use, and development rights. In effect, these non-willing sellers lose control of their lands.
As a result, their land loses value and they decide to sell. They become the “willing sellers.”
Those living adjacent to the managed property areas, meanwhile, suffer enormous tax hikes and cost-of-living increases. As private
property converts to public property, local tax bases shrink. The government must recoup this revenue somewhere; remaining
residents pay in the form of higher taxes and new fees.
H.R. 1964 will continue this decimation of local communities because it allows the federal government to be used as a bank for
financing the political agendas of private NGOs.
Changing the language in the bill’s private property section will not prevent this destruction of local communities and
constitutional private property protections from occurring. Even if language were tightened to the point of providing security that
locals really would control the future of Highlands property, history indicates private property owners and advocates would still
emerge from the bill’s passage as the tossed-aside underdogs.
In 1998, a 15,800-acre privately owned tract of land within commuting distance of New York City called Sterling Forest was targeted
for preservation after environmentalists learned developers were planning to build 13,000 new homes for an estimated 35,000 potential
residents. An organization called the Palisades Interstate Park Commission took the lead in rallying for purchase and public
management of these lands, forming coalitions with other local and state environmentalists -- including known Wildlands Project
supporters like the Audubon Society -- to take their arguments to Congress.
What resulted was a partnership between the federal government and state NGOs, where the former gave money so that the latter
could purchase and control land.
Sound familiar? The Sterling Forest deal, which ultimately encompassed about 17,000 acres and – coincidentally again – connects
Highlands property targeted in H.R. 1964, is also the model for this bill. The déjà vu continues: H.R. 1964 specifies the Palisade
Interstate Park Commission as a “non-federal” entity “with authority to own and manage land for conservation purposes.”
Past experience would indicate this is one non-federal group that wouldn’t hesitate to spread its management authority further
throughout Highlands region lands, the majority of which is currently privately owned.
To maintain that private ownership, perhaps Senate supporters like Senatorss Rick Santorum, Arlen Specter, Ron Wyden and
Larry Craig could take an uncharacteristically nonpolitical step and insert logical language in the bill, before Senate Public Lands
and Forests subcommittee members approve it unchallenged during a scheduled March 24 hearing.
Perhaps a line could be added to this effect: “County governments shall maintain final authority to veto any land proposal
stemming from this bill.” That ought to stop the droolings of cash-strapped state politicians and land-hungry environmental
radicals for a while, at least.
The fundamental concept of private property, the keystone of our economy, would be better served if the entire measure were
scrapped. That would abolish any chance the politicians and radical Greenies have of realizing its hidden agendas.
Otherwise, we Americans are facing the dire consequences of Wildlands Project goals to lock out 50% of each state’s lands from
human use. It is our tax dollars that are assisting current Wildlands Project efforts to take land from Maine to Tennessee from the
private sector. And we’re helping to realize the Wildlands Project dream of grabbing an enormous, connected swath of eastern U.S.
land and placing it off limits to all forms of human residence and productive use forever.
H.R. 1964 sits squarely on the backs of the American taxpayer, who could be required to fund these Wildlands Project practices for
decades because of a bill that does not even bother to stipulate whether Congress will stop its land grab funding past the 2014
deadline.
LINKS TO RELATED TOPICS:
Policy Issues Relating to Energy, Environment,
& Natural Resources
Cheryl K. Chumley, formerly a reporter with CNSNews.Com, is now Associate Editor of the American Policy Center News
Wire. The American Policy Center, a grassroots, activist think tank, is headquartered in Warrenton, Virginia, and maintains an
Internet website at www.americanpolicy.org
Copyright 2004 AmericanPolicy Center
Published with Permission of Alan Caruba
ACaruba@AOL.Com
Return to Top of Page
Go to the WEBSITE INDEX
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Public Issues & Political Controversies
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Volume VI, 2004
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Subject Matter Highlights, Page Two
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Subject Matter Highlights, Page One
Return to POLITICAL EDUCATION Homepage
CONTACT & ACCESS INFORMATION
This is not a commercial website. The sole purpose of the website is to share with interested persons information regarding civics,
civic and social education, political science, government, politics, law, constitutional law and history, public policy, and political
philosophy and history, as well as current and recent political developments, public issues, and political controversies.
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
An Online Journal of Political Commentary & Analysis
Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr., Editor
Conservative & Free-Market Analysis of Government, Politics & Public Policy, Covering Political, Legal, Constitutional, Economic,
Cultural, Military, International, Strategic, & Geopolitical Issues
Government, Politics, Public Policy, Legal Issues, Constitutional Law, Government & the Economy, Cultural Values, Foreign Affairs,
International Relations, Military Defense & National Security, Geopolitics, Terrorism & Homeland Security, American National Interests,
Political Systems & Processes, Political Institutions, Political Ideologies, & Political Philosophy