Today, the Subcommittee on Federal Lands held a legislative hearing on the discussion draft of “Locally-elected Officials Cooperating with Agencies in Land Management Act (LOCAL Management Act).”

The enormity of federal land ownership in numerous states has caused immense problems for counties, contributing to diminished tax bases and a range of duplicative and costly regulations that lack local input.

The  draft legislation is designed to mitigate these challenges by requiring federal land agencies to more closely consult and cooperate with local governments that are burdened by federal intrusion.

 “The most common complaint I hear from locally elected officials in my district is that they are rarely consulted, rarely respected and often bypassed by federal land managers in the decisions that directly affect their communities and the local economy,” Subcommittee Chairman Tom McClintock (R-CA) said.

Overall, it aims to increase communication between local line officers and localities regarding land use decisions, provide better access to recreational lands and offer a more responsible approach to federal land acquisition.

“Tuolumne County has lived with the Rim Fire Disaster and now the Pervasive Tree Mortality Disaster because coordination was not requested or offered in either the 1991 Stanislaus Forest Plan revision or the 2001 Sierra Nevada Framework. We are living with the consequences of diminished timber infrastructure and workforce resources,” Tuolumne County Supervisor for District 1 Sherri Brennan said.

Specific provisions include the requirement for officers from agencies to attend local government meetings at the request of county officials to improve cooperation with local communities. Panel member Jerrie Tipton, Commission Chair of Mineral County in Nevada, highlighted the importance of the provision that limits land acquisition in the West as it has significant impacts in her local community.

“In Mineral County, just 3.4% of our county is privately held and over half of the private land has no taxable infrastructure associated with it. Any loss of private land in my county can have devastating impacts on both the mandatory and non-mandatory services our county provides,” Tipton stated.

Rep. Cresent Hardy commented on subjects of Tipton’s oral testimony including the non-existent relationship with federal land managers citing issues like the remote location of Mineral County. Her relationship with federal agencies was fully based upon her efforts to get to know the people making decisions that affect her everyday life.  

“Cooperative agreement relationships should be between both entities, but in this case the reason you have any relationship at all is because you’ve reached out to those folks,” Hardy said.

Rep. Glenn ‘GT’ Thompson (R-PA) raised concerns with the weight of input given to local communities compared to outside groups with no direct connection to the land in question when creating management plans.

“No, we do not have a weighing system. We don’t currently have a rationale that says local input needs to be weighed more than non-local input,” Deputy Chief of the National Forest System Leslie Weldon responded.

Click here to view the full witness testimony.