|
Frequently Asked Questions
What rule change was made on
January 6, 2003?
The Department of the Interior (DOI) has made changes
to federal regulations regarding “recordable disclaimers” of interests
in lands. The regulations generally permit the US government to issue
a document renouncing any interest in a particular piece of land when
the US government has no valid claim to such land.
The changes to the rule relate to whether states,
counties and local governments can benefit from such disclaimers, even
when they aren’t recorded as owners of any land at issue. The changes
also permit states and local governments to ignore a
statute-of-limitations requirement that applies to all other property
owners.
[Back to top]
Is this a minor change, as BLM
contends? Why not?
This is a MAJOR change. Through this rule change, the
administration is trying to make it easier for the DOI to hand over to
local governments rights-of-way to cow paths, horse trails,
river-beds, and dirt bike and off-road vehicle routes that criss-cross
public lands, including National Parks, across much of the West and in
Alaska, using an ancient mining law known as RS 2477. These paths,
trails and routes could then be bulldozed, made into paved highways or
otherwise.
The effect of granting these rights-of-way through the
rule change is that much of our public lands in the West and in Alaska
may no longer qualify for permanent protection as wilderness, and our
National Parks could be impacted by significant road-related
development. Road and highway development on these “roads to nowhere”
will destroy and fragment wildlife habitat, cause erosion, degrade
water quality, spread weeds, and harm archeological sites. Previous
reports by the National Park Service have concluded that the impacts
of RS 2477 on Parks “could be devastating,” and found that granting
such claims “would undoubtedly degradate most [Park] values and
seriously impact the ability of the [National Park System] to manage
the [Parks] for the purposes for which they were established.”
Places at risk where local governments have made claims
based on RS 2477 to roads to nowhere include: Denali National Park
(AK); Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument (UT); Mojave
National Park (CA); and Canyonlands National Park (UT).
[Back to top]
Has DOI ever before used this
procedure to address RS 2477 before?
NO. While the law permitting DOI to issue disclaimers
was issued more than 25 years ago, this rule change is the FIRST time
that DOI has ever stated that the disclaimer rule could be used to
surrender the public lands for development under RS 2477.
[Back to top]
What lands are affected by the
rule change?
DOI asserts that the rule applies to ALL Federal lands
– including lands managed as National Parks, National Forests,
National Wildlife Refuges, wilderness areas, National Recreation
Areas, and even military bases and training areas. These lands total
hundreds of million acres.
[Back to top]
Will the Federal government
analyze the impacts of surrendering sensitive lands to local
governments for highway development before it gives up the
right-of-way?
NO. DOI makes clear in the rule that it will NOT
analyze the environmental effects of either: (a) this rule change; or
(b) ANY decision to hand over the right to develop an individual “road
to nowhere,” no matter how sensitive the lands the route crosses.
[Back to top]
Isn’t it hyperbole to state that
there are an avalanche of road projects that will be unleashed by the
decision?
No. Counties and states are poised to press thousands
and thousands of these claims. The State of Utah sent a letter to DOI
in 2000 claiming more than 10,000 individual routes across public
lands. The State of Alaska has already identified more than 650
right-of-way claims. The new rules will mean that it can request
“disclaimers” on some or all of them. In addition, in comments on the
rule change, San Bernardino County (CA) expressed concern about
bearing the cost of processing multiple RS 2477 claims through the
disclaimer rule “because the number of claims the county might
potentially file could create a financial burden” on them. This from a
county with a 2003 budget of $2 billion+ budget; which includes $161
million for public works. Gilpin County (CO) and Valley County (ID)
also expressed concerns about how DOI would address cost issues when
counties submitted multiple claims.
[Back to top]
Why is this proposal different
from the RS 2477 resolution proposed by Secretary Babbitt in 1994?
Secretary Babbitt’s proposed rule would have set clear,
concise standards for determining when a state or local government has
obtained a right to use a specific route. The disclaimer rule sets no
such standards. DOI Deputy Secretary Steven Griles told Alaska
industry officials that the Department would use standards that
pre-dated even the lax standards of James Watt’s tenure as DOI
Secretary.
Secretary Babbitt’s proposed rule permitted any
affected person to appeal to the Bureau of Land Management any
decision on a particular route. DOI says that the disclaimer rule
permits only “applicants or claimants” to the land, not the concerned
public, may appeal.
[Back to top]
Isn't this proposal a good way to
reduce litigation and involve the public?
While the public may comment on a decision to disclaim
interest in lands, the process of determining whether a valid
right-of-way exists is not open to the public. The DOI says that the
public will have no chance to appeal right-of-way and disclaimer
decisions; court action will be the only way to challenge decisions
degrading sensitive lands.
[Back to top]
Is this rule change legal?
No. In 1997, Congress prohibited DOI from issuing final
rules related to RS 2477; the General Accounting Office (as well as
DOI previously) concluded that this prohibition was permanent. In
addition, Congress did not intend for DOI to use the disclaimer rule
to be used to address RS 2477 rights-of-way when it passed the Federal
Land Policy and Management Act in 1976. The rule is inconsistent with
current law because it permits counties and local governments to avoid
the 12-year statute of limitations on filing claims to roads to
nowhere. |
