WSMR, DOD may take control of range's Northern Extension Area

On a wide swath of too-often dry and usually wind-swept land along the northern reaches of White Sands Missile Range, ranchers and the military have long ridden herd on a cooperative, if occasionally grudging, relationship. Now, the recent approval of the SunZia transmission line through the missile range — a compromise between the Department of Defense and the Bureau of Land Management in May — has again stirred concerns about access to federal lands and government transparency. Tucked away in the national defense authorization act is a line that provides for "further withdrawal of federal land and transfer to White Sands Missile Range." That line, if given congressional approval and a presidential signature, would essentially shift control of 328,729 acres of BLM land to the DOD. It would only affect future utility construction across the military testing and training grounds and would have no impact on hunting or grazing leases that are in place, nor affect the planned SunZia transmission line, said U.S. Rep. Steve Pearce, R-N.M. The change would give the DOD and WSMR an effective last word when deciding if future construction could take place on the range and the northern buffer zone currently controlled by BLM. BLM would still maintain the grazing and hunting leases and other land-management decisions, he said. At issue is a corridor created to allow for the SunZia transmission line, which included an agreement that several portions of the line would be buried — five miles in all. The proposed transmission line will connect and deliver electricity generated in New Mexico and Arizona to population centers in the Southwest...more

Steve Pearce, if it wasn't for all the subsidies, tax incentives and mandates Congress has passed or funded for "green energy", this proposed transmission line wouldn't even exist.  So let's identify the real culprit here - Congress.

Ray Powell, you are quoted as saying there should be "transparency" and "more discussion must be held with full public input".  I find that ironic in that you endorsed Obama's designation of a 500,000 national monument down here.  Where was the "full public input" on the monument's boundaries, the grazing language, the items to be protected and so on?  There wasn't any.  You are also quoted as being concerned the lands would go from an agency that manages for "multiple-use" to one where that wouldn't be the case.  Well, the national monument proclamation took lands out of "multiple-use" and placed them in a management scheme were there are a few dominant uses that will control everything else.