Big Government and America’s Historical Treasures

In July, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation proposed changes to regulations concerning section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Section 106 relates to protecting historic sites from damage or destruction in federally related projects.

Regrettably, ACHP apparently intends to curtail by regulation the federal government’s statutory obligations to avoid damaging or destroying historic treasures, to mitigate their harm, and to afford state, local and private citizens their rights to due process such as notification, public comment, etc. when federal threat to a historic treasure arises.

Conservatives for Property Rights has consensus principles on public land holdings and use. For the most part, these principles focus on encouraging reduction of federal land holdings and deregulating its use by private parties, such as for drilling and mining rights.

The principles also recognize legitimate reasons for the government to own certain property. Our principles read in part: “Government holdings of land must serve an important, demonstrable public good, such as the preservation of a battlefield as an important historic site and an irreplaceable national treasure."

The section 106 proposal involves a corollary to government property ownership: the federal government’s responsible to safeguard America’s unique features, including through its involvement in projects on or near assets held by state, local or private parties.

In this instance, the feds propose to pretty dramatically reduce the input of the people and governance in the affected area with respect to the affected property’s historic significance. This amounts to the government’s shirking its responsibility.

Not everything over 50 years old warrants historic preservation status or concern for its damage from a local project the federal government contributes to. As the Bipartisan Policy Center notes, there’s room for reform around section 106.

In sone places across the United States, historically significant sites, features, objects, etc. are unearthed regularly and valued. Other places don’t bother about historical features very much. Where historical assets play an important role in the local economy, such as in tourism, the proposed 106 regs pose a serious threat as well as a disservice to our country—this happening in the year in which Americans’ attention to our history is heightened due to our nation’s 250th birthday celebration.

The federal government owes the nation the performance of a reasonable degree of due diligence any time historically significant, unique buildings, sites, and structures are in danger of becoming collateral damage and lost for ever.

Moreover, Congress is actively legislating on permitting reform and related section 106 issues. Article II bodies such as the ACHP should defer to the Article I branch. These facets of the postmodern Administrative State should back down until the legislative branch has concluded its policymaking.

The proposal by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation appears to go too far. It would give the federal government too much discretion. That’s especially the case regarding whether to notify local authorities and to take public input when a historic site is jeopardized by a project. CPR’s principles also say, "Public lands policies should mitigate adverse effects on state and local jurisdictions.”

Empowering the government—especially the federal government, which is so distant from the thousands of potentially historically significant features—to deprive due process and undermine federalism is not reform or responsible stewardship.

ACHP has proposed a broad power grab that disenfranchises those whose views should be primary and informative where the fate of local or state historic treasures are concerned.