Montana is the exception by killing bill to create a land transfer task force-
All of the Western states now entertain bills to take the public lands from the United States and give, transfer or take them for the individual states. Some Republicans in Congress are trying to get the proposed redistribution of land going by means of the annual budget process.
This is happening despite increased support by the general public for keeping the U.S. public lands safe for all Americans. Most Western states have had rallies and demonstrations in their state capitols to keep the public lands, federal. This includes those recently in Colorado and New Mexico. Public opinion polls continue to show that support for keeping the public lands in hands of all Americans is popular. Public opinion surveys say that voters are suspicious that the proposed land transfer will result in privatization of national forests, etc., into the hands of multinational corporations and the billionaires.
Montana is an exception to the recent legislative movement toward state ownership (see, “Montana study of federal-lands transfer dies in committee“). However, in adjacent Wyoming bills to study a land transfer or to demand it are moving through the legislature. Wyoming seems to be the Western state where the public gives the least support for keeping the public lands. Nonetheless, in Wyoming a majority (54%) believe that the public lands are places that belong to the country as a whole, while 37% say these lands belong mostly to the people of Wyoming.
In Arizona where this figure is 71 to 22%, a bill by Republicans Brenda Barton of Payson and Bob Thorpe of Flagstaff (House Bill 2321) tells the federal government to hand over all the public lands in Arizona to the state before 2020. Thorp’s House Bill 2176 mandates the turnover of U.S. public lands that “do not serve a purpose outlined in the U.S. Constitution.” Of course, the Constitution is silent on this because at the time it was written there was no concept of a national park or state park, national forest or state forest. Despite the silence, the Constitution does provide a clear power to own and manage public lands in the “Property Clause” (Article 4, clause 2). These bills are awaiting a vote in the full Arizona House.
Despite efforts in some state legislatures saying that lands obtained from the federal government would not be sold to the highest bidder, these two Arizona legislators clearly do see public land sales as a way of raising money. They have a long record of saying so, dating back to the battle over proposition 120 in 2012 (see below).
Back in 2012 in Arizona, the voters were given a clear choice whether to demand the U.S. lands for Arizona in a ballot initiative. The ballot initiative (prop 120) lost 68 to 32%. This ballot measure is the most obvious test to date of the idea the states should own the federal lands. Earlier, then-governor of Arizona, Jan Brewer, vetoed legislation similar to the ballot initiative.
Public lands in Nevada (here in Butte Valley) are very likely to be threatened by privatization because they are not well known. Copyright Ralph Maughan
In Nevada, the controversy was spurred by a committee of Nevada county officials (the “task force”) which concluded that a transfer of 4 million acres of BLM land would, on the basis of looking at state lands in 4 other states, raise from $31 million to $114 million a year. No word on what they would cost to administer. The 4-million acres was intended to be a “first bite” (10%) approach to taking the federal lands.
Now a Nevada State Senate resolution tells Congress to transfer 7 million acres+ of U.S. land to state control. This is Senate Joint Resolution one. The debate on this has been contentious with demonstrations against it Carson City and even in Elko, Nevada. The latter has long been a place where the right wing cry of taking the federal lands has been the only word.
There was much talk of how bad federal land management is and how good Nevada management will be, but there were no celebratory examples given of the latter because Nevada’s legacy of state lands no longer exists, having been sold off years ago to raise revenues.
In Idaho, it seemed legislative support for transferring the federal lands had faded due opposition to the idea in statewide public hearings and academic reports that in almost every scenario (8 out of 9), Idaho would lose money trying to manage the former U.S. public lands. Now, suddenly, the land transfer folks have changed to a new strategy — and interstate compact. Interstate Compact On The Transfer Of Public Lands is the entity that would be created by HB 265, Interstate Compact On The Transfer Of Public Lands. By creating an interstate compact, land transfer proponents might be able to say they have risen to a level above local or statewide public opinion, and also that they must show solidarity with their sister states in advancing the take of U.S. lands. The Idaho Conservation League just sent out an alert about the new bill.
Recently in Colorado and in New Mexico, there have been demonstrations in favor of our current, long-standing system of public lands, and Oregon not seen an introduction of legislation to take the public lands, although Jackson County in Oregon is pushing the idea. Given Oregon’s political line-up there will not be serious consideration of taking the federal lands, although Oregon is seeing a contentious controversy about privatizing the Elliot State Forest to make more money and increasing the timber cut from the federal “O and C’ lands. These are very productive timberlands that were given as land grants long ago to build the Oregon and California railroad. When that did not happen the lands were revested to the United States to be managed by the BLM.
In Washington D.C. the first budget resolutions for the next fiscal year are being adopted. They are to serve as guides for the actual detailed appropriations that will come at the end of September. Right now Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT) who is chair of the House Natural Resources Committee is trying to get $50-million in the budget to actually begin the public-lands-transfer-to-the-states maneuver. In Utah the legislature is putting up an amazing $12-million to keep fighting for Utah’s plan to take the public lands. See: Editorial: Utah spends another $12 million on futile fight. Salt Lake Tribune.