Congress passes land grab expansion law. S.1942 is a new National Heritage Area law expanding Department of Interior power over federal Land Management Plans. While claiming no private property may be influenced or acquired, it demands cooperation between local municipalities and governing bodies in preservation and conservation of private property. It extends the deadline for submitting Land Management Plans to avoid public scrutiny.

It increases the funding and renews the National Heritage Areas until 2037.

While the Department of Interior tells the public that these Heritage laws are about tourism, you can clearly see in this law, this about recreation and preservation of all lands within the boundaries agreed to by Congress and the Department of Interior.

The Department of Interior, agencies and participants of these preservation-for-recreation schemes claim that these ideas are community driven. That has never been the case. In the 41 million acres encompassing the boundaries of Freedom’s Frontier NHA and the proposed KNHAP, approximately 100 people knew about the NHAs. There is no claim or requirement in S.1942 that NHAs be community driven, inspired or acknowledged by the community. S.1942 supports the special interest groups and government bodies that create and administer the federal jurisdiction and land management plans of the NHA.

To see how your representative voted, click here.

---

Special interest groups, their government partners and supporting federal agencies claim that National Heritage Areas are nothing more than marketing heritage tourism in an area. None of the representatives speaking on the floor on December 22, asked why tourism required a federal boundary or federal land management plan. S.1942 refuses to continue that claim in this legislation.

You can watch the discussion on S.1942 on C-Span at this link. It starts at 10:34:07.

---

The more interesting parts of S.1942 are the required reports to the Committe on Energy and Natural Resources. The Secretary of the Department of Interior will be required to report opposition and federal funding recommendations. In one example, will the opposition to Big Sky NHA in Montana be reported? The overwhelming majority of citizens, organizations and governing bodies are opposed to that NHA. Will the DOI report that and recommend federal funding to that NHA be eliminated? What penalty will the Secretary face for lying in the required reports?

The sections on the various reports are as interesting as the section claiming that private property will be respected, while demanding that local governing bodies aid in preservation and conservation _{^{(which is stopping or preventing the development or use)}} in yet, another section of S.1942.

You can read and download the law at this link. It is in a pdf format.

---