Iowa SF255 NR tags going to outfitters.

[Gellar]

Your public lands for sale - Iowa Version!

SF2316 proposes authorizing the DNR to purchase tracts of land for nuclear waste storage, then requiring the agency to sell an equal number of public acres to offset the acquisition.

A convoluted equivalent to converting public land to revenue-generating property and restricting public access.

The face of America’s new public land legacy, bill sponsor Jesse Green! (Boone, Webster City, Jefferson).
View attachment 315581

Iowa SF2316 | 2023-2024 | 90th General Assembly

Bill Text (2024-02-13) A bill for an act relating to the acquisition and disposition of property by the department of natural resources. [Subcommittee: Rozenboom, Green, and Knox. S.J. 278.]

legiscan.com

Before I read the bill I imagined this bill was allowing the state to purchase land to store nuclear waste and then they would have to mitigate land to offset it. As @trackerbacker said this is a common practice, especially for highway construction and when wetlands are disturbed. I do not believe this is how the bill is intended to work but if you read section 2
it says: for EVERY parcel of land acquired by the state a parcel of equal size must be sold within a year by the department. The language also says ACQUIRED not purchased, this means that even if a landowner donates land to the DNR the DNR will still have to sell an equal amount of land within a year, a net zero on public ground.

I can already see Mr. Green making deals with his farmer buddies to sell 40 acres of ground at X amount per acre to the state that they cannot farm due to floods or whatever other reason and in return the state is forced to sell back 40 acres of crop ground that they have been recieving cash rent on and providing wintering food for animals annually at an amount per acre that is less than the amount the farmer paid. So Mr. Green's buddy still has the same amount of land and so does the DNR, but his farmer buddy also has a little extra cash in his pocket and the DNR cannot cash rent that farm ground anymore.

 

[Trial153]

Free market baby!

 

[trackerbacker]

Your public lands for sale - Iowa Version!

Iowa SF2316 | 2023-2024 | 90th General Assembly

Bill Text (2024-02-13) A bill for an act relating to the acquisition and disposition of property by the department of natural resources. [Subcommittee: Rozenboom, Green, and Knox. S.J. 278.]

legiscan.com

Before I read the bill I imagined this bill was allowing the state to purchase land to store nuclear waste and then they would have to mitigate land to offset it. As @trackerbacker said this is a common practice, especially for highway construction and when wetlands are disturbed. I do not believe this is how the bill is intended to work but if you read section 2
it says: for EVERY parcel of land acquired by the state a parcel of equal size must be sold within a year by the department. The language also says ACQUIRED not purchased, this means that even if a landowner donates land to the DNR the DNR will still have to sell an equal amount of land within a year, a net zero on public ground.

I can already see Mr. Green making deals with his farmer buddies to sell 40 acres of ground at X amount per acre to the state that they cannot farm due to floods or whatever other reason and in return the state is forced to sell back 40 acres of crop ground that they have been recieving cash rent on and providing wintering food for animals annually at an amount per acre that is less than the amount the farmer paid. So Mr. Green's buddy still has the same amount of land and so does the DNR, but his farmer buddy also has a little extra cash in his pocket and the DNR cannot cash rent that farm ground anymore.

View attachment 315603

One could also infer that it's step 1 towards allowing new nuclear sites. Hard to have nuclear sites without a viable method of storage of waste.

Do we currently have anything relative to the storage of waste, given that's what the discussion is primarily, permitting/not permitting/ legislated out of practice that by having this bill allows for the feasibility of nuclear power facilities to be stored, and the dnr to manage the sites/facilities for waste?




Moreover, it reads to me it may be transferred/ arranged with other political entities AS MUCH as it reads similar to you Mr green/ farmer deal @Gellar

Though note-i have not read the noted code sections, going from 10,000'

 

[Gellar]

One could also infer that it's step 1 towards allowing new nuclear sites. Hard to have nuclear sites without a viable method of storage of waste.

Do we currently have anything relative to the storage of waste, given that's what the discussion is primarily, permitting/not permitting/ legislated out of practice that by having this bill allows for the feasibility of nuclear power facilities to be stored, and the dnr to manage the sites/facilities for waste?

View attachment 315623View attachment 315624View attachment 315625


Moreover, it reads to me it may be transferred/ arranged with other political entities AS MUCH as it reads similar to you Mr green/ farmer deal @Gellar

Though note-i have not read the noted code sections, going from 10,000'

Chapter 28 of the Iowa code already allows, in some cases requires, transfers of land with other political entities including Federal, state, county, and municipality.

Let's call a spade a spade. For the last how many years every time a bill has come to the floor for debate that is trying to limit the acquisition of land by public agencies there has been record turn out of people from the public with NO one speaking in favor of it. Mr. Green and a few of his cronies are always the authors or the sponsors of the bill. Mr. Green is trying to write this bill in a way that to a person just reading the title it seems he is doing the DNR a solid and allowing them to still purchase or receive land. But as you dig deeper into it you can begin to see his motives have not changed and he is trying to limit the powers of public agencies to purchase or acquire land.

Would you be upset if you showed up at one of your favorite WMA's in Winneshiek County and 40 acres of it had been sold, you could no longer access your favorite natural funnel or portion of trout stream and as you dig deeper into it you find out it was sold to offset 40 acres purchased in Emmet County that is now housing nuclear waste? Because that is what would happen with this bill.

 

[trackerbacker]

Chapter 28 of the Iowa code already allows, in some cases requires, transfers of land with other political entities including Federal, state, county, and municipality.

Let's call a spade a spade. For the last how many years every time a bill has come to the floor for debate that is trying to limit the acquisition of land by public agencies there has been record turn out of people from the public with NO one speaking in favor of it. Mr. Green and a few of his cronies are always the authors or the sponsors of the bill. Mr. Green is trying to write this bill in a way that to a person just reading the title it seems he is doing the DNR a solid and allowing them to still purchase or receive land. But as you dig deeper into it you can begin to see his motives have not changed and he is trying to limit the powers of public agencies to purchase or acquire land.

If we're talking spades and euchre, I'm afraid I'll renig on you.

I'm not a proponent of .gov expanding any footprint. I'm not a crazy tea party, I'm not a hippie love child, but .gov should have very limited focus and footprint on anything that is private sector business. As in-yes we need "auditors", we should have "first responders", we should have "public grounds", so on and so forth.

I don't believe though that .gov should be in any directly competitive arena. If I want to gift my land to dnr, great, awesome, amazing. If I want to sell my land/provide access (which years past I have), great, to the bidder of my choice, be it dnr or John doe.

I don't think they should be allowed to purchase land as a blank check because they "could" create the blank check budget for it. And reason 2, is I don't think it should be derived off revenue either, because they are the monopoly man to the product. .gov doesn't allow monopolies (in theory), nor shall they be one in regards to products of their "industry".

Is the bill dumb for capping acreage, absolutely. Dump that immediately. Should they be allowed unlimited $, no, they should be fixed under market value rate. They should receive limited entry into any business space period, off the bat, and under extreme scrutiny at all times. City, state, fed, dnr,dhs etc etc.

Would you be upset if you showed up at one of your favorite WMA's in Winneshiek County and 40 acres of it had been sold, you could no longer access your favorite natural funnel or portion of trout stream and as you dig deeper into it you find out it was sold to offset 40 acres purchased in Emmet County that is now housing nuclear waste? Because that is what would happen with this bill.

Absolutely, but upset I didn't know to buy it, not upset they sold it, upset they had a cap and upset they weren't creative enough to shift the wma to a separate politically entity and remain what it is.

But I am not upset if a bill passes, I'm upset with the voters, I'm upset we get what we get because we vote for who we vote for. But somehow, someway, I can not blame pols directly or indirectly (unless it's their own corruption, grift etc...)

I think AOC is an exceptional idiot, I don't like her voting record, or stances, but "we get who we vote for", and I can only place blame on the populace for that. You. Me. My wife. Your buddy. AOCs constituents ,Mr green's constituents.

I could go on a diatribe about the 12th and 17th amendment and how that directly changed to outcome and placed us where we are today, but ill stop here.

The will of the vote...

Mr sherman was not wrong about the populace either.

 

[Gellar]

Feb 16 was the first funnel for bills. A bill had to be passed out of committee by that day in order to be advanced. A list of bills that have been passed include:
Sf 2014 - changes deer depredation tags
Hf 2310 - trespassing while hunting
Sf 2241 - prohibits deer baiting
Sf 2324 - limits ability of DNR to purchase or receive land purchased at auction

Not passed:
Sf255- guarantees 500 tags to outfitters, the bill @Big Fin and Marcus did the video about
Sjr 12- make hunting/fishing a constitutional right
Sf42- increase NR deer tag numbers
Sf553- allow NR family members to obtain a deer license
Sf2056-expands the definition of family member for use on Landowner tags
Ssb3103- no anonymous complaints to the DNR

Bills can still be amended, they just can’t be introduced. So they could amend a bill to include language from other bills that are dead.

 

[Gellar]

SF 2324, the DNR acquisition bill that’s been getting national attention on social media and with other conservation orgs has a hearing tomorrow March 12 at 12 pm.

SF 2324 assigned to committee in the House - Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation

www.inhf.org