From Sea to Shining Sea, Federal Land Control?

What is the Biden Administration 30 x 30 initiative,
and what could possibly go wrong.







WHAT IS THE 30 X 30 PROGRAM?

The 30 x 30 program is an international agenda advanced by radical environmental activists to permanently protect 30 percent of the world’s land and oceans in their natural state by 2030. The program in America was initiated by the Biden Administration through Executive Order 14008, “Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad” (86 Fed. Reg. 7,619), signed January 27, 2021.

Proponents argue climate impacts are human-caused, and permanently preserving 30 percent of America’s land and oceans is necessary to reverse climate change. This action must be taken immediately, they claim, to avoid impacts on the ecosystem and wildlife. However, the science and data do not justify these extreme policy measures.

30 x 30 is an unconstitutional policy shift, moving us from a nation founded on private property principles to one controlled by the administrative state.



WHO IS BEHIND 30 X 30?

In 2019, the progressive organization Center for American Progress (CAP) published the primary report supporting the 30 x 30 program in America, entitled “How Much Nature Should America Keep.” This was followed by a Resolution calling for the 30 x 30 program to be introduced in both the U.S. House and Senate. One of the 10 Senators that co-sponsored the Resolution was current Vice President, Kamala Harris. On the House side, one of the five cosponsors was Representative Debra Haaland, now the Secretary of the Department of the Interior.

CAP was founded by John Podesta with funding from George Soros backed Foundations. It is directed by well- known progressive elites, such as Stacey Abrams, Julián Castro, and Senator Tom Daschle.

The author of the two CAP reports setting the 30 x 30 agenda is Matt Lee-Ashley. He currently serves as the Chief of Staff for the Chair of the Council of Environmental Quality, which is leading the White House’s Climate Crisis Task Force 30x30 workgroup.

Podesta, CAP’s founder, was appointed as Chairman of the National Climate Task Force September of 2022, by President Biden to implement 30x30 and other climate crisis programs through the administrative agencies.

The League of Conservation Voters, The Nature Conservancy, World Wildlife Fund, Sierra Club, Wildlands Network, Center for Biological Diversity, and other environmental organizations have also been actively promoting the agenda.



WHAT LAW AUTHORIZES THE PROGRAM?

There is no constitutional or statutory authority for the President, the Department of the Interior, the Department of Agriculture, or any other federal agency to set aside and preserve 30 percent of all land and water in the United States, and no such authority is referenced in Executive Order 14008, or in the 30 x 30 report published May 6, 2021, entitled “America the Beautiful.”



WHAT IS THE SCIENTIFIC BASIS?

There is no scientific reasoning cited in the Executive Order. The CAP report has numerous citations, but most of them are to press releases and opinion papers issued by like-minded advocacy groups and international reports. The same holds for the Administration’s 30 x 30 May report. There are a few references to scientific papers relying on principles of conservation biology, none of which prove climate change theories or demonstrate that 30 percent of all land and oceans in the United States must be preserved to maintain biological diversity.

The Heritage Foundation released a report entitled “Lands and Habitat in the United States: A Reality Check,” by Robert Gordon. This report debunks many of the 30x30 claims because it relies on factual data, not the unreliable climate crisis models that attempt to predict what nature will look like decades from today. (See report page 10.)



HOW HAVE THEY DETERMINED 30% MUST BE CONSERVED BY 2030?

The Department of Interior (DOI) released a Fact Sheet in conjunction with the Executive Order that mirrors the CAP report conclusions. DOI states:

“Approximately 60% of land in the continental U.S. is in a natural state, but we are losing a football field worth of it every 30 seconds. The decline of nature threatens wildlife; across the globe, approximately one million animal and plant species are at risk of extinction in the coming decades, including one-third of U.S. wildlife.

The U.S. Geological Survey reports that only 12% of lands are permanently protected. Studies show that roughly 23% of America’s ocean is currently strongly protected, with the vast majority of ocean protections found in the western Pacific Ocean.” (See citation, page 9)

Norman James, a natural resource attorney with Fennemore Law, ran the numbers to see if this theory is justified in his article “The 30 x 30 Land Grab” published in Liberty Matters News Service, February 16, 2021. Here is what he concluded:

• Proponents claim we are losing a football field of land every 30 seconds, or about 3,000 acres per day. That equals 1.1 million acres per year, or 11 million acres per decade.
  
• By contrast, 11 million acres is just 0.5% of all land in the U.S. (out of 2.27 billion acres), and only 1.7% of the land already owned by the federal government (640 million acres). That figure does not include Tribal land, which is likely to be unaffected by the 30 x 30 program due to the federal government’s trust responsibilities.
  
• Additionally, the U.S. Geological Survey reports that 12% of the land in the U.S. is already “permanently protected” — over 274 million acres of land. What is already protected is 25 times the amount of land that purportedly will be lost over the next 10 years.
  
• If approximately 300 million acres of land are already permanently protected, and, according to the proponent’s numbers, only an estimated 11 million acres might be removed from its natural state by 2030, why must they add another 400 million acres in the next 9 years? The science does not justify this enormous taking.
  

Based on the numbers alone, it appears the program is being pushed not for scientific purposes, but rather to usher in a fundamental policy shift that erodes constitutional protections by placing vast tracts of land, both private and federal, off-limits to economic use and development.



IS THE LONG-TERM AGENDA TO TAKE 50% OF AMERICA’S LAND?

While 30 percent by 2030 is the current target proponents are aggressively pursuing, the CAP report sets a long-term goal of permanently preserving 50% of our lands and oceans by 2050. This is set forth as Principle number 8 in the report and has been promoted by other radical organizations that oppose land and resource development, such as the Center for Biological Diversity, the Wildlands Network and National Geographic.

The idea of 30 x 30 comes from the “Half Earth” philosophy, where it is advocated that 50 percent of earth must be returned to wilderness. This is an international goal that is being pushed on every nation. September 22, 2021, the IUCN World Conservation Congress went beyond this number and passed resolution number 101, which calls on all nations to work towards protecting 70 percent of the worlds lands and oceans.

In America, two States have also advanced this idea. The New Mexico Governor signed an executive order calling for 50% protection of the land in the State. The Vermont Legislature passed a bill calling for 50 percent protection of the land by 2050. Fortunately, the Vermont Republican Governor Scott vetoed the bill.



WHAT QUALIFIES AS “PERMANENTLY PROTECTED IN ITS NATURAL STATE?”

The Executive Order is not clear on what land is being targeted for the program or how it would be managed. But, it appears that this land would be set aside permanently and be off-limits to most human use. For example, the lands included in the 12% permanently protected figure cited in the DOI Fact Sheet is comprised of national parks, wilderness areas, private lands with permanent conservation easements, state parks, national wildlife refuges, national monuments, or other protected areas. These are the most restricted lands in America.



WILL PRIVATE LAND BE TARGETED?

The Biden Administration has not released specific targets it is considering for the program. However, the CAP report states that 60% of land in the contiguous 48 States is privately owned, but only 1% is permanently protected. They also conclude that “more than three-quarters of the natural area that the United States lost in the contiguous 48 states from 2001 to 2017 was on private lands.” (Page 11). This suggests programs to permanently protect lands that are currently privately owned, will be pursued.

Private lands are the most productive, ecologically diverse areas in the nation because they have been well managed, and therefore are a major target. Proponents have stated protecting these areas will be necessary to reverse their theory that over one million species will go extinct in the coming decades. This should alarm every landowner.

Additionally, Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) monies are to prioritize projects and acquisitions near or adjacent to existing protected areas. That means those areas that already have large protected federal land holdings, or private lands with conservation easements, are also primary target areas for LWCF monies.









WILL RESTRICTIONS INCREASE ON FEDERAL LANDS?

It is likely that a substantial portion of the land and water to be preserved will come from the land owned by the federal government in the 11 contiguous western states and Alaska. Specifically, the lands near or adjacent to areas already under permanent protection are vulnerable for inclusion in the program, as they help create the core reserves and connected corridors environmental activists have long been advocating.

In August of 2022, when Congress Passed the Inflation Reduction Act, environmentalists launched the “ReWilding of the American West,” campaign where they are advocating for the creation of 11 districts on federal lands, 5,000 square kilometers, to be connected through conservation easements and private land acquisitions. This will create wildlife corridors from Canada to Mexico, specifically designated for wolf and beaver introductions. The first uses to be eliminated are livestock grazing, mineral extraction and off-road vehicles.

The House of Representatives’ Select Committee on Climate Crisis produced a report in June of 2020, entitled “Solving the Climate Crisis,” where they called for policy changes to implement the 30 x 30 agenda. These include expanding the boundaries of national parks, monuments, and wildlife refuges. They advocate converting more lands into restrictive wilderness areas where the land must be managed in its natural state with no motorized vehicles, and where wildfires are allowed to freely burn.







HOW WILL THE PROGRAM BE FUNDED?

The Biden Administration is using existing funds, programs, and authorities to implement the agenda through the administrative state. Upon initiation of the program in 2021, the Administration quickly increased funding for many of the conservation programs through the U.S. Department of Agriculture, such as the Conservation Reserve Program, and conservation easements, both permanent and term, in an effort to entice more landowners to enroll their private acreages into programs creating a federal connection to the land.

The President’s 2022 proposed $6 Trillion budget identified “America the Beautiful” (i.e. 30 x 30) as one of the programs the budget will fund. The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2022 Budget made 37 appropriations for the program.

At the end of 2021, the Department of the Interior granted $1 Billion to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation to re-grant to land trusts, other conservation groups and government entities implementing programs that will help the Administration reach its 30x30 target. They reallocated funding already authorized by Congress to achieve this purpose.

Additionally, in 2019, Congress passed a bipartisan bill that fully and permanently funded the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), which receives $900 million annually for land acquisition and conservation projects. Half of this funding is dedicated to federal acquisitions of private land.



ARE TRADITIONAL CONSERVATION PROGRAMS PART OF 30 X 30?

U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary Vilsack has been actively encouraging landowners to sign up for conservation programs as a way to help achieve 30 x 30. However, what is not often publicized is that programs that use federal funds to pay landowners for conservation activities can create a federal nexus to the property, giving the Administration an avenue to control the use of private lands they otherwise would not have. Landowners are already seeing contracts under the Biden Administration that contain new restrictions for lands to be re-enrolled into these conservation program.

Regardless of whether a contract lists a specific issue that may trigger more federal oversight of the property, the fact that federal funds are used for the program can trigger potential restrictions. For instance, critical habitat for endangered species does not affect private property “unless” there is a federal nexus. The federal nexus is created when a landowner enrolls the private property into a program that is “authorized, funded, or carried out” by a federal agency. The Endangered Species Act requires “all” federal agencies to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service when there are potential species’ impacts or modification of the habitat through a federal program. This would include the programs administered through the Department of Agriculture (DOA). (16 U.S.C.A. § 1536(2)(a), Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act) In August of 2022, Congress passed the Inflation Reduction Act (HR 5376) authorizing an additional $20 Billion for conservation programs administered by DOA, such as the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), Environmental Quality Improvement Program (EQIP), Agriculture Conservation Easement Program (ACEP), and others. Landowners have been using these programs since 1985, which were originally created to help improve soil conservation, water management and other productive purposes. However, while the names of the programs have not changed, the purpose for the funding has been significantly altered. The new funds under HR 5376 have been allocated to mitigate climate change, control agriculture production and reduce livestock emissions.

Landowners should be cautious and diligent in understanding the potential federal control and new purposes this new language can place on private property. The 2023 Farm Bill should be closely monitored as advocates for 30x30 have stated they aim to make this new language applicable to all future conservation funding.



ARE CONSERVATION EASEMENTS A PART OF 30 X 30?

The Department of Interior includes conservation easements (CE) in perpetuity on private lands as a part of the 12 percent of lands in America that are currently “permanently protected.” When a landowner places their land in a CE, they are selling more than just the development rights. They are transferring control of the property to the land trust or federal government who will now ensure the land is managed for the priority of the conservation purpose. The landowner may still hold the title, but they no longer have the functional control of the property. While some agriculture activities may continue, these are limited to the existing activities and levels of these activities specified when the contract is finalized. This prevents the agriculture operation from adapting to changes in nature and technology as they normally would to ensure sound land management practices, and a profitable business.



DOES THE “AMERICA THE BEAUTIFUL” REPORT ANSWER LANDOWNER’S QUESTIONS?

The Administration’s first report on 30 x 30, released May 6, 2021, entitled “America the Beautiful,” was intended to be an implementation plan, as called for in the Executive Order. Instead, it is a carefully packaged message with lofty sounding goals that resonate with the urban public, such as “locally-led,”“stakeholder collaboration,” and “working lands conservation.” But their principles and goals are empty ideals with very few details of how they are to be achieved.

Although the Administration states we must “conserve” and “restore” our lands, it does not define what this means nor how this will be achieved. It does not even define what lands or land use designations qualify. The Department of Interior seemed certain only 12 percent of the nation was “permanently protected” when the Executive Order was released, but now the Administration will not confirm that these highly restricted areas are a part of the 30 x 30 plan.

The few specifics that are listed in the Report focus on enticements for urban and suburban communities who know little about the federal restrictions currently placed on our rural lands inhibiting good resource management. The Administration is marketing this program to these target audiences, counting on their buy-in and support.

For instance, they emphasize the need for more parks in urban areas, so people have access to open space within ten miles of their homes. They advocate for unlocking access to landlocked public lands for hunters and recreationists, which require public access across private lands. Further, they offer funding to tribal communities. The Administration needs these three constituencies to support the more aggressive land restrictions required to reach the 30x30 goal.

None of these small-sized actions will get them to a 30 percent goal alone. There must be more – a lot more – and although they are not telling us directly, they have been revealing what these are since taking office.



IS THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION IMPLEMENTING THE PROGRAM?

Yes. February 11, 2021, the Acting Secretary of DOI rescinded an important policy that allowed local governments and the States to veto a federal land acquisition proposed through the LWCF. In Secretarial Order 3396, Biden’s Acting Secretary of the DOI revoked this protection, clearing a critical hurdle that would have protected private lands from federal acquisition.

June of 2022, the Bureau of Land Management announced it had made its largest private land acquisition in the State of Wyoming, acquiring 35,000 acres. Neither the County Commissioners nor the Governor were informed of the purchase until it was publicly announced.

February 26, 2021, a massive wilderness bill (H.R. 803) passed the House with the White House’s endorsement, stating the bill would help the administration accomplish its 30 x 30 goal. This bill created 1.5 million acres of new wilderness, permanently withdrew 1.2 million acres of mineral reserves holding the rare earth minerals we now import from China and Europe, designated 1,200 miles of Wild and Scenic Rivers, and expanded 110,000 acres of National Monument Lands. Thankfully, the bill died in the Senate.

Additionally, the Administration has increased the monies being paid to set aside lands for conservation. They are directly competing with, and out-pricing, the working landowner with tax-payer money. The Federal government is attempting to convert land use from being based on private property rights, to a socialistic system. They are making it harder for landowners to stay in business, pushing them into the conservation programs where they must cede control of their lands to the environmental agenda.



WILL THE ADMINISTRATION WORK WITH LANDOWNERS?

While there is language in Executive Order 14008 stating the intent is to work with landowners and local representatives, there is no direction on how this will be carried out. Section 216 of the Executive Order simply states the intent as follows:

“... and the heads of other relevant agencies, shall submit a report to the Task Force within 90 days of the date of this order recommending steps that the United States should take, working with State, local, Tribal, and territorial governments, agricultural and forest landowners, fishermen, and other key stakeholders, to achieve the goal of conserving at least 30 percent of our lands and waters by 2030.”

The EO and the 30 x 30 report state they intend to work with landowners, that the conservation efforts will be locally driven, that they want to help agriculture keep working lands working. Yet, they fail to define what they mean by “conserve,” are pushing for more restrictive land designations, and have revoked States and local governments’ ability to object to federal land acquisitions. Further, they expect landowners to believe 30 x 30, an international agenda, will be locally driven.

The Administration’s actions do not match the rhetoric. Local governments directly impacted have been asking to meet with the Administration since early February 2021. Instead, the Administration has conducted “listening sessions” with environmental and stakeholder groups that support the program and promote conservation easements. Additionally, 15 Governors sent the President a letter with specific questions on how the program would be implemented, which remains unanswered.

The Administration has failed to provide the public with the most fundamental details about the program. Yet, they are actively pressing landowners to “voluntarily” sign up for federal programs to reach the 30x30 goal.

This is not about conservation. This is about control of our land and liberty.

Key Documents Cited:

• Executive Order 14008, “Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad” (86 Fed. Reg. 7,619), January 27, 2021
  
• Department of Interior, Fact Sheet: President Biden to Take Action to Uphold Commitment to Restore Balance on Public Lands and Waters, Invest in Clean Energy Future, January 27, 2021
  
• “How Much Nature Should America Keep,” Center for American Progress, August 2019
  
• “Solving the Climate Crisis,” Majority Staff Report, US House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis, June 2020
  
• “Lands and Habitat in the United States: A Reality Check,” by Robert Gordon, published by The Heritage Foundation, March 2022
  

Protestors Label Hillary Clinton As
“Wellesley’s Most Beloved War Criminal”
During An Appearance At Her Alma Mater







On Saturday, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton faced student protests while visiting
her alma mater, Wellesley College.

Clinton was returning to campus to receive honors after the college named a building after her,
however, she was faced with protesters who were protesting a democracy summit on campus,
which also featured Clinton.

Local news outlet ABC10 Boston alleged that students had circulated pamphlets in the days
leading up to the summit, referring to Clinton as Wellesley’s “most beloved war criminal,”
and arguing she has “blood on her hands.”

School administrators acknowledged the protest but did not condemn it, with Vice President
and Dean of Students Sheilah Shaw Horton saying in a statement, “I encourage all who
participate in activism to follow the demonstration policy and be mindful of our Code of
Student Conduct so that you remain safe for yourself, and for our community.”

Clinton isn’t a stranger to protests during her visits to American universities. Earlier this year,
she was interrupted by protestors while appearing at Columbia University,
where students repeatedly called her a “war criminal.”

Her appearance at Wellesley comes just days after a much-maligned appearance on the
“Tonight Show” with Jimmy Fallon, in which she told U.S. voters to “get over” themselves
and vote for Biden.






Fallon asked Clinton what she’d say to voters who are “upset” that former President Trump
and President Biden are the only two choices.

“Get over yourself. Those are the two choices,” Clinton responded. “One is old, and effective,
and compassionate, has a heart and really cares about people. And one is old and has been
charged with 91 felonies.”

“I don’t understand why this is even a hard choice, really. I don’t understand it,”
Clinton continued. “But we have to go through the election and hopefully people will realize
what’s at stake because it’s an existential question. What kind of country we’re gonna have,
what kind of democracy we can have and people who blow that off are not paying attention
because it’s not like Trump, his enablers, his empowerers, his allies are not telling us what
they want to do. I mean, they’re pretty clear about what kind of country they want.”

The response to the comments was not particularly positive.

“I don’t think it was a very wise statement on her part. How did that work out for her in 2016?
I think that’s something that we have to recognize.” said ESPN personality Stephen A. Smith.

“Yes, she won the popular vote. But at the end of the day, she wasn’t the President of the
United States. It was him,” Smith continued. “You can look at her not campaigning in
Wisconsin in the last days, not campaigning in Pennsylvania in the last days … You can
bring up a whole bunch of things. But at the end of the day, the last thing you need to
do is to do anything that could agitate a potential voter in this particular election.”