Idaho could net $51 million to $75 million annually if it convinced the federal government to turn over 16,400,000 acres of federal public land to the state.
That’s the conclusion of State Management of Federal Lands in Idaho a quick analysis done by the Idaho Department of Lands, in response to lawmakers considering demanding a federal public land transfer like Utah has done. The profit figure was based on the revenues that could be returned after a 15-year transition of 7 million acres of forest land foresters estimated could yield 800 million board feet of timber annually.
Another 9.5 million acres of rangeland were considered a part of the transfer but the agency estimated there would be no profit in it for the state. And unlike Utah, there is no known oil and gas resources on the lands proposed for transfer and not a lot of known minerals.
Tom Schultz, Idaho Department of Lands director
The state also would have to reserve the right to reject any lands from transfer that had abandoned mines or other hazardous wastes that could increase the state’s financial liability, State Lands Department Director Tom Schultz said in a letter to the chairmen of the House and Senate resource committees.
“This analysis is a “’napkin approach’” to determining the amount of federal lands in Idaho that would be hypothetically transferred to State management under assumptions similar to Utah HB 148, along with a very basic examination of estimated costs and revenues associated with that management based on our own practices as a State land management agency,” Schultz wrote.
The ballpark guess has a number of assumptions and caveats underlying its conclusion.
First of course is that the federal government would give in to the questionable legal theory behind the entire Utah idea. Second, that specially protected areas would be excluded.
These include:
• All roadless areas
• Lands that are National Grasslands, managed by the Forest Service
• National Monuments
• National Conservation Areas
• National Recreation Areas
• Wilderness
• Wilderness Study Areas
• Uplands of Wild and Scenic Rivers
• Historic and Scenic Trails
• National Wildlife Refuges
• U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
• U.S. Corps of Engineers
• U.S. Department of Defense
• U.S. National Wildlife Service
• U.S. National Park Service
• U.S. Department of Energy
• Indian Reservations.
So only 16,400,000 acres of the 34,500,000 acres of federal land would be transferred under the hypothetical.
The federal government paid approximately $195 million to suppress wildfires in Idaho in 2012. The Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management spent an estimated $275 million to manage their lands in 2012 beyond fire, not counting research.
The Lands analysis predicts firefighting costs for the 16,400,000 acres that would be transferred based on its own costs on it lands to be only $45 million annually. The federal government would still fight fires on the remaining 18.1 million acres it would keep.
And while the lands would still be open to the public, the profit does not take into account the costs of providing trails, campsites and other recreational facilities. Lands said another agency would have to handle that with out making an estimate of how much that would cost.
Republican Rep. Judy Boyle, of Midvale, one of the lawmakers supporting the idea said the analysis shows the state would not be bankrupted by such a plan nor be forced to sell of the land, which she absolutely opposes.
“This is not the intent to sell off this land,” Boyle said. “It would still be public land because that makes Idaho, Idaho.”
The state also would have to meet most of the environmental laws including the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act, the two law that have done the most to limit logging and grazing. It would not have to follow the National Environmental Policy Act.
The analysis includes no consideration of how Indian treaty rights might be affected in such a transfer. It also it not apparent that they include the cost of maintaining more than 30,000 miles of forest roads they would inherit.
But Boyle said she had only briefly looked at the analysis. So far no bill has been introduced and there is no reason that Idaho would have to follow the model of Utah, she said.
Schultz is scheduled to testify next week before a House Resources subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulations in Washington, D.C. about federal land transfers to states.
Ah yes, proft is all we should worry about. We should build roads into the Frank, graze the Owyhees into submission, and dam all the rivers. Never mind that all that public land has shown to bring in more money from tourism and outdoor rec than the extraction of natural resourses.
This must be the shortest-sighted and worst idea in Idaho’s history. Let’s give Idaho to a bunch of money-grubbers so they can ruin the rest of what hasn’t already been ruined. Somebody is behind this with only their own profit in mind, at the expense of Idaho’s future. Kill this bill!
Still trying to figure out how teh gov’t spends $275,000,000 on bare land each year. – not counting research.
I disagree with the implication that NEPA is not one of the laws that has done the most to limit logging and grazing.
NEPA provides for public involvement, and this legally mandated public involvement is expressed at times as litigation. Litigation tends to be effective if it can be proven in the planning stage that the law will not be followed.
Another good idea…..from Utah? Read below about the Utah problem, driven by defunding, privatizing everything public, deregulating everything business.
Attorney’s General under investigation. Members of my Party, GOP donors indicted. Read below and weep.
Utah:
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home3/55598812-200/johnson-swallow-rawle-attorney.html.csp
http://www.cityweekly.net/utah/article-77-16068-dialing-for-dollars.html
Not clear if the “profit” includes the $45 million they predict spending on fire suppression.
The “napkin approach” is another way of saying they have no idea how much it would cost or what the revenue impact would be. Last time I checked, logging can still occur on National Forest and the state still benefits from logging on federal lands. As long as we’re still paying federal taxes, why not let the federal government pay for managing it?
“This is not the intent to sell off this land,” Boyle said. “It would still be public land because that makes Idaho, Idaho.”
Until the legislature runs the state broke again and decides it is in our best interest to sell.
There’s a very strong conservative ideology of privatization towards state lands and it not about preserving Idaho for the future.
This is about a specific political party’s unchecked controls of state government and its cloak financial supporters who are driving this concept to sell of public lands.
The Otter administrations goal is to weaken environmental protections and dispose of public lands for menial sums of money reward GOP supporter.
If public lands are sold, the lands would be sold to the wealthy or corporations and the impact to state or local coffers would be negligible.
This is simply a GOP politician spewing anti-government opinion based fact propaganda, with absolutely no real world facts.
This is a paranoid conservative political party propaganda media strike to sway low information tater into fearing continued federal control of public lands which has been ongoing for hundreds of years.
Once these lands are gone there are gone for good and Idaho changes forever.
In an era of apparent fiscal responsibility ushered in by these same conservatives, why would the state seek billions of dollars of liability and management responsibility to assume ownership over the 30 million acres or so of parks, forests and public lands in Idaho.
It would bankrupt the state trying to maintain the land it would immediately be required to change access fees, to these lands.
An example of lobbyist driven fear the government lets privatize liquor business fro the benefit of all, well that recently occurred in Washington. The people were told costs would go down to more stores selling liquor, however the facts are the people of Washington have seen immediately cost increase of 27% and many state stores that were sold have simply went out of business because liquor sales have dropped up to 25% and the small craft liquor makers and wine makers have been pushed out of stores.
So beware of the lobbyist and conservative propaganda of opinion based facts as the sell you privatization of everything, its not in the best interests of the people of our state or our states future.
The only paranoia I can see is by this respondent. The Washington liquor privatization as an example of Idaho managing public lands shows an agenda or sheer ignorance.
Idaho has already shown its integrity when it comes to managing forest lands. Up here in the North (from the Clearwater on), they have stripped the endowment lands bare. This has all been done for rock bottom prices per thousand board feet. In effect, they have once again given the Idaho trust to their friends. They can hang this idea of them taking over the management of federal lands right where it needs to be hung. When the endowment runs out Idaho’s schools will suffer even more. Making them no longer second to last in the nation as far as per pupil funding but dead last.