| Author |
Message Text |
|
Pinetree
|
This land deal has been going on for decades
|
|
Pinetree
|
land
|
|
brp
|
Can anybody here speak to the idea that MN selling these lands might mean surrendering authority over them?
In the context of mining, a border fence, or some unforeseen future issue, where MN might have different priorities than the Fed, would MN ownership give MN more weight in decision making?
|
|
flopnfolds
|
The state / DNR wanted to move forward with the sale because the nature of the ownership of the state owned land in a federally protection area limits the natural resource value that can be extracted from the land via logging or mining. The DNR has a fiduciary responsibility to fund the Permanent School Fund which is land given to public schools to help fund their operations.
Many school fund lands are currently logged or have mining activity which increases revenue for the permanent school fund. The state was unable to perform either of these tasks, or other revenue generating activities, because the land was in a protected area.
I would interpret this as more land conservation protections for the BWCA, not that the state could do anything on the land in question regardless, and the permanent school fund will have increased revenue due to the sale of the land to the federal government.
|
|
brp
|
Thanks for the informed response.
I understand that MN can’t extract much value from the land currently (although I do wonder about permit fees going partially to MN) but can’t MN prevent development or devaluation of the land currently? For example, could MN say, “you can’t cross our land in the process of building a fence,” or “you can’t mine land X because associated pollution will cross onto our property.”
Part of the reason I ask, is I wonder if just a few randomly distributed parcels of state owned land within the BWCA might give MN “outsized” influence over what happens to the land.
|
|
flopnfolds
|
I wouldn't think it gives the state much more influence. The federally protected nature of the bwca probably gives it more protection than Minnesota would/ could.
It would likely takes an act of congress to do a border fence or mining. I don't think state owned land stands much of a chance of the feds want to build a wall.
That's my last two cents. Your milage may vary!
|