Position on H.R. 538, H.R. 1644, and H.R. 2288

H.R. 538: Native American Energy Act – NPCA opposes this bill because it eliminates necessary health and environmental protections for those living on or near tribal lands. Among the numerous provisions of concern in this bill is language essentially stripping tribal lands of protections from the impacts of oil and gas development, subjecting tribal members to potentially harmful air quality, water quality and health impacts. In this way, the bill circumvents judicial review and the National Environmental Policy Act, both of which protect the opportunity for public engagement and protection of communities from harmful, unnecessary, or misguided development projects. In addition, the bill may unlawfully or unnecessarily incentivize resource development or extraction. Finally, national parks and communities adjacent to tribal lands, including Glacier National Park and Grand Canyon National Park, would lose the right to comment on or challenge plans to develop fast-tracked energy projects at their doorstep.

H.R. 1644: Supporting Transparent Regulatory and Environmental Actions in Mining Act (STREAM Act) – NPCA opposes this legislation because it would halt ongoing rulemaking by the Department of the Interior’s Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) to protect streams from the adverse impacts of surface mining. OSM has been studying these issues for years, yet the bill would require another $2 million to be spent on further study and delay any action thereafter. The current rulemaking should be allowed to proceed and the public given the opportunity to comment on the proposal. In addition, the bill would require that the Secretary of Interior make available any “scientific product” relied upon in “any draft, supplemental, final, or emergency rule…or any related environmental analysis or economic assessment” 90 days before publication of such rule, analysis, or assessment. Given that much of OSM’s day-to-day operations involve “analyses or assessments” of an economic or environmental nature, this requirement could create uncertainty and hamper OSM’s ability to function.

H.R. 2288: To remove the use restrictions on certain land transferred to Rockingham County, Virginia, and for other purposes – NPCA opposes this legislation because it contradicts the previous legislation that designated the land for recreation and it violates land disposal laws including reimbursing the federal government for the property. This bill would allow Rockingham County to use the entire property unconditionally for any purpose, including selling it or using it for other commercial purposes. Currently, one commercial use—a 3,500-square foot child care center—is approved to operate on the property by previous legislation. The land was originally conveyed to Rockingham County through the Federal Lands to Parks Program which helps communities increase opportunities for public recreation—a use that this bill could reverse. Additionally, it is contrary to federal land disposal laws for the county to acquire the land, which it would through this bill, without reimbursement to the federal government (it was original conveyed at no cost to the county).