Idaho Wants To Manage Federal Land But Federal Laws Would Limit State Efforts
U.S. Sen. Larry Craig and the Republican-dominated Legislature are working from two flanks to ensure Idaho gets the chance to manage some of the millions of acres of federal land within its borders.
But reams of federal environmental rules that still would govern those lands could stop state management efforts in their tracks.
After a much-publicized call in the Legislature for state management last winter, lawmakers are moving more gingerly now, gauging public sentiment before presenting their findings to the state Land Board next year.
“It’s one of those things where you can’t eat the elephant in one big bite,” said Republican Sen. Judi Danielson of Council, co-chairman of a task force on the issue with Democratic Rep. Charles Cuddy of Orofino.
The panel - which includes representatives from Idaho’s resource industries, state agencies and counties - must produce a report for the Land Board by June 30, 1998.
State management or co-management of federal land in Idaho would require congressional approval, then the Land Board would have to enter into a joint agreement with the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management.
Craig, R-Idaho, unveiled draft legislation in December that includes a provision that would allow states to administer federal property. But they still would have to comply with federal laws such as the Clean Water and Endangered Species acts, as well as the weighty National Environmental Policy Act with its sweeping assessment and public hearing requirements.
Idaho Lands Department staff presented a report to the task force in November with estimates of how much income could be expected from timber sales alone if the state took over three Panhandle national forests.
The revenue could allow the state to spend about $32 million a year on forest management, $5.5 million on fire suppression, $7.4 million to the Lands Department for administration, $18 million to the counties in lieu of local property taxes and still send $9.7 million to the federal treasury, according to the report.
However, the Lands Department study also included an important caveat.
“The major qualification revolves around the status of laws, rules and procedures that currently govern federal land management policies,” it said.
“Without relief from these restrictions, the state would be hamstrung in management in much the same way as the federal government now is. We would spend more time in litigation and paperwork than on the ground.”
“I think that it’s something that needs to be resolved,” said Mike Tracy, Craig’s spokesman. “It’s something the senator will look at and get input from the groups at the table.”
Mike Medberry of the Idaho Conservation League is the acknowledged environmentalist on the state task force, which he describes as slanted toward logging, mining and ranching interests.
He cautioned that Americans will not accept lifting restrictions such as the Clean Water Act from their public forests.
“There’s no way as a country we’re going to give up clean water,” Medberry said. “Those forest lands don’t belong to the timber industry, don’t belong to the mining industry. They belong to all of us.”
Medberry conceded that complying with federal laws, such as the public hearing requirements, eats up taxpayer dollars quickly. However, he said the rules are there for a reason.
“One fundamental idea between state and federal management is that state oversight would somehow give more control to citizens on how things are managed,” he said. “But the federal government has very strict guidelines on alerting the public when things happen.”
Danielson and Cuddy represent districts that have been economically crippled by sawmill closures. State leaders have no intention of completely assuming Forest Service control, Danielson said, but the issue should be subjected to public scrutiny.
“Actually, we were trying to get in the way of the train that seemed to be moving toward turning it all back to the states,” she said. “Considering the dynamics, that’s a conversation you’re not going to get too far with.”
The Legislature’s debate last winter had an allor-nothing tone.
Critics claimed the Lands Department would grab vast tracts of forest, then either log or trade them to private enterprise. They also brought up instances in which the state has been lax in complying with federal environmental laws.
U.S. District Judge William Dwyer last September ruled that Idaho’s efforts to write cleanup plans for 962 waterways was moving at a “glacial pace” and gave the state five years to get the job done.
But supporters said the Lands Department can turn a profit on the same land where the Forest Service often loses money on timber sales.
Task force leaders hope to shed more light on such questions. The group has split into subcommittees on the environmental and fiscal aspects of the proposed shift. It contemplates eight pilot projects as a “test drive” of whether Idaho can effectively administer the national forests.
Danielson does not envision the Lands Department taking over entire forests or BLM districts. Rather, the shift would involve a mosaic of parcels where it makes more sense for the state to run things.
“I personally think we can do something,” Danielson said. “Can we do it all? I don’t believe we can.”
xxxx IDAHO LAND Almost 64 percent of Idaho’s land is owned by the federal government. Here is a breakdown of who owns what portion of the state’s nearly 53 million acres: Federal Land: 33,727,051 acres (63.8 percent) Forest Service: 20,437,559 acres (38.4 percent) Bureau of Land Management: 11,859,214 (22.7 percent) Other: 1,430,278 (2.7 percent) State Land: 2,629,633 acres (5 percent) Endowment land: 2,473,593 acres (4.7 percent) Department of Fish and Game: 118,100 (0.2 percent) Department of Parks and Recreation: 37,940 (0.07 percent) Private Land: 16,387,873 acres (31 percent) County Land: 96,203 acres (0.2 percent) Municipal Land: 22,518 acres (0.04 percent)