Senate committee OKs wilderness bill
The Organ Mountains (Photo by Heath Haussamen)
Members of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee gave unanimous approval today to a bill that would designate hundreds of thousands of acres in Doña Ana County as wilderness.
With that approval from 13 Democrats and 10 Republicans, the Organ Mountains – Desert Peaks Wilderness Act now heads to the Senate floor for a vote.
“Our state has been trying since the Reagan administration to establish wilderness areas in Doña Ana County,” said Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M. and one of two sponsors of the bill. “I’m pleased the bill was cleared by the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and that it is now ready for approval by the full Senate.”
The other sponsor, Sen. Tom Udall, D-N.M., said he commended Bingaman, chairman of the energy committee, “for leading the way on his committee’s passage of this landmark legislation, which will protect the incredible landscapes of the Organ Mountains and Doña Ana County’s other natural treasures for generations to come.”
“I look forward to its swift consideration and passage by the full Senate,” Udall said.
The legislation would designate almost 250,000 acres as wilderness and 100,000 acres as national conservation areas. In addition to the Organ Mountains, land on and around the Potrillo, Robledo and Doña Ana mountains would be protected.
Update, 5:15 p.m.
Wilderness proponents are trotting out a number of people to praise today’s committee vote.
“Today’s vote shows that collaboration and consensus building pays off,” Las Cruces City Councilor Gill Sorg said in a news release. “Senator Bingaman should be commended for reaching out, listening to concerns, and making changes to his legislation to make it as strong as possible.”
“By adjusting boundaries, accepting recommendations from border Security experts, and making tough decisions, Senator Bingaman and Senator Udall worked to enhance national security, while also achieving broad community support and desired conservation goals with the Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks Wilderness Act,” Lynn Scarlett, former deputy secretary of the Interior under President George W. Bush, said in the release.
“With so much security stakeholder input, this bill is the best example of how to preserve both the security on the border and preserve our pristine land,” Paul Deason of Las Cruces, who sits on the U.S. Justice Department’s Anti-Terrorism Advisory Council, said in the release.
“Protecting our spectacular natural areas – like the Organs and the Robledos – is vital to protecting the quality of life that we enjoy here, and that is key to a thriving business climate,” said Renee Frank, board chair for the Las Cruces Green Chamber of Commerce. “Our incredible open spaces and wild mountains are the reasons many people and businesses move to Las Cruces to make their livelihoods and raise their families.”
6 Comments
Leave a Response
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I wouldn’t pop the champagne cork just yet. The US Senate, aka “The Gentleman’s Club”, has always voted unanimously in committee when both of a given state’s US Senators (Bingaman and Udall in this case) recommend a land designation within thier respectives state.
The vote, along with 18 other bills in 2 hours, simply agreed to move SB 1689 out of committee and to the Senate floor for debate. Local press failed to mention that this was part of 18 bills lumped together. The appearance was that this committee only heard and voted on SB 1689. The facts state otherwise.
In any event, the legislative clock is running out. So much more pressing issues for our country than a federal land grab bill. Like Jobs? Cutting government spending?
Ironically, the cap and trade initiative which lost its mojo this week due to conservative Democratic resistance will most likely not be taken to the floor for debate and vote. If so, this just might free up enough time for the federal land grab bill, aka SB 1689, to be voted on in the Senate.
Wouldn’t it be ironic? If not for the failed cap and trade legislation, SB 1689 might not have ever been passed. So my question to the environmental crowd, what is better if given only two choices? Cap and trade legislation or SB 1689? Many times, politics forces such choices.
Here is hoping that the legislative clock runs out before November elections. But then again, once the expected tournover occurs in Congress, we have to be weary of a lame duck salvo of passage before all the losers leave D.C.
Great political drama for all of us to watch.
The Greater Las Cruces Chamber of Commerce opposed this for reasons having nothing to do with what’s best for businesses in Las Cruces and Doña Ana County, but instead for ideological reasons, spurred on by right wing members of their Government Affairs Committee. They’ve never bothered to understand the lighting ordinance, which won’t hurt businesses, and which will help elderly drivers a great deal — and there are a lot of us in Las Cruces. Likewise the dust ordinance, if properly written, will help all the houses on the East Mesa who’ve had ruined landscape and miserable conditions from scraped off subdivisions that were never built. So, an alliance with the Building Industry Association plus a rigid ideology looking for a place to land equals trouble for our friends at the Greater Chamber. They’ve lost track of the businesses they’re supposed to serve.
All we need do now is come up with the ongoing funding to properly maintain the lands. Hey, I am for open space too. Just have to figure a way to pay for it. I also wonder how much of this land now comes off the tax rolls. So I hope “Uncle Sugar aka the U. S. Government” is able to provide a payment in lieu of taxes to the county.
As for what will happen to the chamber of commerce? If, it passes, one should always remember it was the Chamber of Commerce that formerly requested and insisted on a local field hearing. The Chamber was criticized for such a request by supporters of the designation. The field hearing was held. And second, despite much criticism and assertions by strong supporters of SB 1689, that no more changes would be made, it was the Chamber who was the main force leading to a change in language to improve border security in SB 1689. Albeit not strong enough due to conditions still being placed on law enforcment. And third, the Chamber did not oppose “all aspects” of the SB 1689. This always gets lost by those who choose to narrow the context of the Chamber’s position.
So, if this passes, the Chamber will invariably continue to fight for its members on other such issues as the current lighting ordinance changes and dust ordinances being debated at City Hall. I believe the Chamber will be a voice for reason and balance and not shy away from taking positions that might be contrary to certain special interests or a United State Senator or Congressman. As as for this legislation, if passed, the Chamber will most likely continue to be vigilant in monitoring the impact on our Border due to the real and present danger, both physically and public relations, to our community.
And for the record, the Chamber’s membership has grown over the past 6 months while being aggressively assailed by the zealous wilderness supporters.
So, Otis, the impact to the Chamber as a strong opponent of the weak border security aspects of this legislation? My prediction is that the Chamber will go on and continue to fight for businesses in a world that increasingly punishes the job and wage creators. If they keep doing that, they will continue to grow in membership and be a welcomed thorn in the side of anyone or any organization that threatens a positive business climate and image within our community.
This appears well on the way to passage. If it happens, what will the effect be on the Las Cruces Chamber of Commerce to have been identified as a strong opponent of the bill?
Finally both Republicans and Democrats “unanimously”agree on a piece of legislation – at least in Committee. This is very impressive. Here are the members of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee:
REPUBLICANS
Lisa Murkowski (AK)
Richard Burr (NC)
John Barrasso (WY)
Sam Brownback (KS)
James E. Risch (ID)
John McCain (AZ)
Robert Bennett (UT)
Jim Bunning (KY)
Jeff Sessions (AL)
Bob Corker (TN)
DEMOCRATS
Chairman Jeff Bingaman (NM)
Byron L. Dorgan (ND)
Ron Wyden (OR)
Tim Johnson (SD)
Mary L. Landrieu (LA)
Maria Cantwell (WA)
Robert Menendez (NJ)
Blanche Lincoln (AR)
Bernard Sanders (I) (VT)
Evan Bayh (IN)
Debbie Stabenow (MI)
Mark Udall (CO)
Jeanne Shaheen (NH)