[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
SCHOOL TRUST LANDS OWNERSHIP WITHIN FEDERAL CONSERVATION AREAS
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS
AND ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION
of the
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Tuesday, September 10, 2013
__________
Serial No. 113-40
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
or
Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
82-947 WASHINGTON : 2014
____________________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
DOC HASTINGS, WA, Chairman
PETER A. DeFAZIO, OR, Ranking Democratic Member
Don Young, AK Eni F. H. Faleomavaega, AS
Louie Gohmert, TX Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ
Rob Bishop, UT Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Doug Lamborn, CO Rush Holt, NJ
Robert J. Wittman, VA Raul M. Grijalva, AZ
Paul C. Broun, GA Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
John Fleming, LA Jim Costa, CA
Tom McClintock, CA Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Glenn Thompson, PA CNMI
Cynthia M. Lummis, WY Niki Tsongas, MA
Dan Benishek, MI Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR
Jeff Duncan, SC Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI
Scott R. Tipton, CO Tony Cardenas, CA
Paul A. Gosar, AZ Steven A. Horsford, NV
Raul R. Labrador, ID Jared Huffman, CA
Steve Southerland, II, FL Raul Ruiz, CA
Bill Flores, TX Carol Shea-Porter, NH
Jon Runyan, NJ Alan S. Lowenthal, CA
Mark E. Amodei, NV Joe Garcia, FL
Markwayne Mullin, OK Matt Cartwright, PA
Chris Stewart, UT Vacancy
Steve Daines, MT
Kevin Cramer, ND
Doug LaMalfa, CA
Jason T. Smith, MO
Todd Young, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Legislative Counsel
Penny Dodge, Democratic Staff Director
David Watkins, Democratic Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS AND ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION
ROB BISHOP, UT, Chairman
RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Democratic Member
Don Young, AK Niki Tsongas, MA
Louie Gohmert, TX Rush Holt, NJ
Doug Lamborn, CO Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
Paul C. Broun, GA Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Tom McClintock, CA CNMI
Cynthia M. Lummis, WY Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR
Scott R. Tipton, CO Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI
Raul R. Labrador, ID Steven A. Horsford, NV
Mark E. Amodei, NV Carol Shea-Porter, NH
Steve Daines, MT Joe Garcia, FL
Kevin Cramer, ND Matt Cartwright, PA
Doug LaMalfa, CA Vacancy
Jason T. Smith, MO Peter A. DeFazio, OR, ex officio
Doc Hastings, WA, ex officio
------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Tuesday, September 10, 2013...................... 1
Statement of Members:
Bishop, Hon. Rob, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Utah.................................................... 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 2
Grijalva, Hon. Raul M., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Arizona........................................... 2
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Statement of Witnesses:
Baier, Maria, Chief Executive Officer, Sonoran Institute..... 12
Prepared statement of.................................... 13
Donaldson, Timothy, School Children's Trust Director, Utah
State Office of Education.................................. 4
Prepared statement of.................................... 5
Opp, Kathy, President, Western State Land Commissioners
Association and Deputy Director, Idaho Department of Lands. 6
Prepared statement of.................................... 7
Additional Material Submitted for the Record:
Abrams, Mary M., Ph.D., Director, Oregon Department of State
Lands, Prepared statement of............................... 22
Ogsbury, James D., Western Governors' Association, Letter
submitted for the record................................... 24
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON SCHOOL TRUST LANDS OWNERSHIP WITHIN FEDERAL
CONSERVATION AREAS
----------
Tuesday, September 10, 2013
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:05 a.m., in
room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Rob Bishop
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Bishop, McClintock, Lummis,
Daines, Cramer, Grijalva, and Garcia.
Mr. Bishop. All right, the committee will come to order,
even though you are not doing anything out there, anyway. We
notice the presence of a quorum who is here.
The Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental
Regulation is meeting today to hear testimony on school trust
land ownership and the relationship with Federal conservation
areas.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. ROB BISHOP, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF UTAH
Mr. Bishop. With the approval of the committee, I am going
to put most of my statement in its written form in there. I
just want to highlight the fact that we are talking about
States' trust lands that are scattered out especially in the
West, where we have millions of acres, but many of them are
locked up in areas in which we cannot get to them, which they
cannot be used, where their value is not as significant as if
they were actually blocked together into a usable pattern.
Western management is extremely significant to that. It has
taken us a long time to try and move those things forward.
In Utah, for example, we passed a law trying to speed this
process up in 2009. That fast track still hasn't come into
effect. So if our fast-track effort is taking a half-a-decade
we realize that something is terribly wrong with the system and
the process, and it needs to be fixed.
So, I appreciate inviting the witnesses who have come here,
who I think will tell us that there is possibly a way of doing
it, if once again we all are with patience, with good will, try
to work in a collaborative effort to find the best solution to
how we find these lands and how we use these lands.
So, I appreciate the witnesses who are with us. I
understand one of our witnesses has missed a connecting flight,
so may or may not actually show up at some time. But we thank
you for your efforts to travel here.
With that, I wish the rest of my statement to be placed
into the record, and I will turn to Representative Grijalva,
first of all, for opening statements.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bishop follows:]
Prepared Statement of The Honorable Rob Bishop, Chairman, Subcommittee
on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation
The Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation is
meeting today to hear testimony on school trust land ownership and the
relationship with Federal conservation areas. State trust lands,
granted to the Western States at statehood, are to be managed for the
benefit of public education. The scattered, checkerboard-like pattern
of State trust lands places many parcels in restrictive federally
designated conservation areas, complicating management and severely
limiting the land's value for the beneficiaries. Nearly 1,000,000 acres
of State trust lands are inaccessible because they are located within
these restrictive federally designated areas.
Consolidating State trust lands in high value, mineral-rich, and
accessible areas should be a priority for this committee, the entire
Congress, the administration, and non-governmental stakeholders. Trust
land consolidation boosts public education funding, creates jobs and
economic diversity for rural communities, and allows Federal land
managers to oversee cohesive landscapes. This type of win-win-win
rarely exists in western land management topics.
The existing process to consolidate trust lands is broken. Despite
the win-win scenarios created by consolidations, land exchanges are too
costly, too timely, and overly bureaucratic. In Utah, a congressional-
directed land exchange authorized in 2009 has yet to be completed.
Congress directed this exchange in order to bypass the sluggish
administrative route. If the fast-track option takes more than 4 years,
it's safe to assume that all aspects of the system--both congressional
and administrative--are flawed and reform is needed.
Western land management has a profound impact on families, local
communities, and future generations. Congress, land managers, and
stakeholders must work together to develop land management strategies
that make sense for all involved. Successful land management strategies
can only be achieved when land management agencies, stakeholders, and
elected officials work together, like we are here today in this open
meeting. No single agency, interest, or constituency should trump
another. The stakes are too high to ignore other interests or to be so
rigid in one's mission as to preclude long-term development
opportunities. Win-win scenarios can be achieved, but they will require
an openness to collaborate, think differently, and to break the
bureaucratic tendencies of the past.
______
STATEMENT OF THE HON. RAUL M. GRIJALVA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
holding the hearing. I want to also thank the witnesses for
taking time out of their busy schedules to testify today.
As a former school board member, school trust lands are
very important, as a source of revenue, in trying to meet the
overall budgetary and curricular demands that any school
district has anywhere, and particularly in the West. And I am
going to hear about a proposal today that allows States to
trade trust lands surrounded by Federal land for other
unappropriated Federal land. States and education proponents
are clear benefactors of this proposal. And, if done right, a
proposal like this could find support among conservation groups
and Federal land managers.
As an advantage to consolidating Federal land, it helps
land managers be able to focus their resources on concentrated
areas, and states will be able to find new and more effective,
efficient ways to fund public education. I think the whole
proposal is about getting the details right.
And, moving forward, we have to have--we have to ensure
that land exchanges are transparent and open, following
established Federal standards, and not taking unnecessary
shortcuts. We do not want to shortcut or sideline any
commitment in order to make this work. Environmental review and
protected endangered species cannot be tossed out with the
bathwater.
I am looking forward to hearing from our witnesses. And,
like I said, if done correctly, this can be a win-win for
everybody involved.
With that, let me yield back, and thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Grijalva follows:]
Prepared Statement of The Honorable Raul M. Grijalva, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. I would also
like to thank the witnesses for taking the time out of their schedules
to testify today.
School trust lands are an important source of revenue for public
education in many States, especially across the West. I started my
political career as a school board member and understand how it
important it is to make sure our schools have the resources they need
to meet the growing challenges of educating our Nation's youth.
Congress granted States entering the union trust land with the sole
purpose of providing revenue for public education. Since then, a lot
has happened. We've established national parks and other Federal
conservation areas, protecting some of the most important aspects of
our national and cultural heritage.
Our public lands are visited by millions of Americans each year and
outdoor recreation supports over 6 million jobs across the county. Our
conservation successes are a major economic engine for the country and
a source inspiration for the millions of annual visitors, but there are
still challenges we have to address.
Today we will hear about a proposal to allow States to trade trust
land surrounded by Federal land for other, unappropriated Federal land.
States and education proponents are the clear benefactors of this
proposal, but if done right, a proposal like this could also find
support with conservation groups and Federal land managers.
Consolidating ownership of Federal lands can be a win-win that will
save taxpayer money and improve conservation efforts.
Land managers will be able to focus their resources on concentrated
areas and States will be able to find new and more efficient ways to
fund public education.
Getting the details right is paramount. Moving forward, we have to
ensure that land exchanges are transparent and open, following
established Federal standards and not taking unnecessary shortcuts. We
do not want to shortcut or sideline any other commitments in order to
make this work. Environmental review and protected endangered species
cannot be tossed out with the bathwater.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses and starting this
important conversation.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Under the rules, obviously, opening
statements are required by the chairmen. The subcommittee and
full committee, any other Member who wishes to have an opening
statement can be part of the record if given to our staff by
the close of business today.
I'd like to welcome you here. We will turn to our first
panel, if we could. And we welcome Tim Donaldson, who is the
School Children's Trust Director from the Office of Education
in the State of Utah; Kathy Opp, who is the Deputy Director of
Department of Lands in the State of Idaho; and Maria Baier?
Ms. Baier. Baier.
Mr. Bishop. Baier. Got the German right the first time. OK.
Maria Baier, who is the Chief Executive Officer of the Sonoran
Institute. We welcome all of you. We appreciate you traveling
this distance to give the testimony that you have today. Your
written testimony is, obviously, part of the record. We will
ask for you to add your oral testimony on top of that, and then
be open for questions afterwards.
For those of you who have not been here before, the oral
testimony is limited to 5 minutes. We are on a time line. There
is a time when we want to end. So we would ask you to watch the
clock ahead of you diligently. When the light is green on
there, you still have plenty of time. When it is yellow, you
don't have a whole lot of time. You have got 1 minute left.
Hustle it up, because when it is red I want you to stop, even
if you are in mid-sentence. And we will apply that same
standard to us, when we ask questions, as well.
So, let me turn to the panel. We thank you for being here.
Mr. Donaldson, we are ready for your opening statement.
STATEMENT OF TIMOTHY DONALDSON, SCHOOL CHILDREN'S TRUST
DIRECTOR, UTAH STATE OFFICE OF EDUCATION
Mr. Donaldson. Thank you, Chairman, Ranking Member, and
members of the subcommittee, my name is Tim Donaldson, and I am
the School Children's Trust Section Director at the Utah State
Office of Education. I thank the subcommittee for conducting
this hearing on the critical issue of how to resolve the
tensions between school trust lands and Federal land ownership.
I am before you today to support this new idea to accommodate
more effective school trust land management, and improve
Federal conservation management.
Funding public education in Utah is one of our more
intractable public policy problems. In Utah we have seen
dramatic growth in funding for public education coming from the
school land trust program. In the 2000-2001 school year, for
example, 13 years ago, the school trust provided approximately
$5 million for public education, which was less than \1/10\ of
1 percent of the overall education budget. For the school year
which just began, this 2013-2014 school year, the distribution
from the school trust was over 37 million, which was over 1.2
percent of the overall public education budget. This is fast-
growing money which has doubled in size approximately every 5
years.
It is also tax-free money, which makes it a gold mine for
helping with the challenge of funding public schools in our
State, a State which has the lowest per-pupil spending for
public education in the country. With the uniquely large ratio
of K through 12 students to taxpaying workers in Utah, the need
is dire for us to maximize every public education funding
resource that we have.
There are other Western States which provide for a
significantly larger proportion of the public education budget
through their school trust lands and corresponding permanent
school funds. It is our belief in Utah that the school trust
will be a big part of the solution as we work to more fully
fund public education in the years and decades to come.
There have been decades of contention in Utah between
public education advocates and Federal land management
agencies, as hundreds of thousands of school trust land acres
were captured in national parks, monuments, and other Federal
conservation designated areas. Had this proposal, which is
before you today, been in effect then, the interest of public
education would have been more fully valued, and tensions would
have been diminished.
As a quick historical reminder, Thomas Jefferson was a
critical early supporter of public education in America. And
the school trust lands largely owe their existence to his
vision. Jefferson envisioned a self-governing republic of
educated, informed citizens enjoying the blessings of
civilization and the arts, advancing scientific knowledge, and
developing technology to enhance and enrich the way we all live
our lives.
Finally, on a personal note, my wife is a first-grade
teacher at a West Side school in Salt Lake County. Mrs. D, as
her students call her, has 33 students in her classroom this
year, including one student with autism, one student with
Asperger's, and one student who is a refugee from Iraq. She
does not have an aide. More school trust lands money would help
provide for more teachers and more aides.
I see in here every night how challenging it is for our
educators to fulfill the promise of our society and provide a
high-quality public education to all of our students. We need
to fully utilize every resource that we have to help fund
public education. We need the tools in place to work through
the inevitable land management conflicts in such a way that
Jefferson's vision of lands held in trust to support public
education can fully be realized.
I thank the subcommittee for your attention to this
important matter, and we look forward to working with you as
legislation is crafted that can gain broad, bipartisan support,
and ultimately be enacted to help better fund the education of
our children.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I would be
happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Donaldson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Timothy Donaldson, School Children's Trust
Director, Utah State Office of Education
Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva, and members of the
subcommittee, my name is Tim Donaldson and I am the Director of the
School Children's Trust Section at the Utah State Office of Education.
I thank the subcommittee for conducting this hearing on the critical
issue of how to resolve the tensions between school trust lands and
Federal land ownership. I am before you today to support this new idea
to accommodate more effective school trust land management and improved
Federal conservation management.
In Utah we have seen dramatic growth in funding for public
education coming from the School LAND Trust Program. In the 2000-2001
school year, the school trust provided approximately $5 million for
public education, which was less than \1/10\ of 1 percent of the
overall public education. For the school year which just began, the
2013-2014 school year, the school trust distribution was over $37
million, which represented 1.2 percent of the overall public education
budget. This is fast-growing money, which has doubled in size
approximately every 5 years. It is also tax-free money, which makes it
a gold mine for helping with the challenge of funding public schools in
our State, a State which has the lowest per-pupil spending for public
education in the country. With a uniquely large ratio of K-12 students
to tax-paying workers in Utah, the need is dire for us to fully
maximize every public education funding resource that we have.
There are other Western States which provide for a significantly
larger proportion of the public education budget through their school
trust lands and corresponding permanent school funds. It is our belief
in Utah that the school trust will be a big part of the solution as we
work to more fully fund public education in the years and decades to
come. There have been decades of contention in Utah between public
education advocates and Federal land management agencies, as hundreds
of thousands of school trust land acres were captured in national
parks, monuments, and other Federal conservation designations. Had this
proposal which is before you today been in effect then, the interests
of public education would have been more fully valued and tensions
would have been diminished.
Thomas Jefferson was a critical early supporter of public education
in America, and the school trust lands largely owe their existence to
his vision. Jefferson envisioned a self-governing republic of educated,
informed citizens enjoying the blessings of civilization and the arts,
advancing scientific knowledge, and developing technology to enhance
and enrich the way we all live our lives.
My wife is a first grade teacher at a west-side school in Salt Lake
County. Ms. Donaldson has 33 students in her classroom this school
year, including one student with Autism, one student with Asperger's,
and one student who is a refugee from Iraq, and she does not have an
aide. More school trust lands money would help provide for more
teachers and aides. I see and hear every night how challenging it is
for our educators to fulfill the promise of our society and provide a
high-quality public education to all of our students. We need to fully
utilize every resource that we have to fund public education. We need
the tools in place to work through the inevitable land management
conflicts in such a way that Jefferson's vision of lands held in trust
to support public education can be fully realized.
We thank the subcommittee for your attention to this important
matter and we look forward to working with you as legislation is
crafted that can gain broad bipartisan support and ultimately be
enacted to help better fund the education of our children. Thank you
for the opportunity to testify and I would be happy to answer any
questions.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. We will turn now to Ms. Opp.
Welcome from the Gem State. Once again, 5 minutes for your
opening statement. We are happy to have you.
STATEMENT OF KATHY OPP, PRESIDENT, WESTERN STATE LAND
COMMISSIONERS ASSOCIATION AND DEPUTY DIRECTOR, IDAHO DEPARTMENT
OF LANDS
Ms. Opp. Good morning, Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member
Grijalva, and members of the subcommittee. My name is Kathy
Opp, and I am the current President of the Western State Land
Commissioners Association, as well as being Deputy Director for
the Idaho Department of Lands. I thank this subcommittee for
conducting this hearing this morning to examine a new tool,
which is actually an old tool, for potentially resolving land
tenure issues between State endowment trust lands and Federal
land management.
The WSLCA is comprised of 23 Western States who share a
common mandate for managing trust lands on behalf of our
schoolchildren in each of our States. As a group, we are the
second-largest land manager in the Nation, second only to the
Federal Government. Currently, our combined educational trust
funds amount to over $271 billion. And in 2012 we earned and
distributed over $3.8 billion for public schools, primarily K
through 12. Our members manage lands for multiple purposes,
commercial and residential development, mineral and energy
development, timber harvest, agriculture production, critical
wildlife habitat, recreation, open space, and a myriad of other
revenue-generating opportunities for our beneficiaries.
By nature of the statehood acts, the millions of acres that
we received are interspersed with Federal land ownership in the
West: 93 percent of current Federal ownership lies within 11
most western States and Alaska. Their Federal ownership
comprises 52 percent of the land base. And in Idaho, for
example, 62 percent of all the lands are owned by the Federal
Government.
The inter-mingled lands that are owned by the Department of
the Interior and the U.S. Forest Service have very different
land management mandates from the legal mandate that is placed
upon State trust land managers. The States are obligated to
manage endowment lands with undivided loyalty to a single
purpose: to general revenue for public schools and our State
institutions.
Existing administrative and legislative solutions to
resolved mixed ownership is costly, complicated, and
unpredictable. Federal policies and guidelines have made
exchanges nearly impossible to complete in a reasonable
timeframe. Many of our member States cite specific examples of
such exchanges taking well over a decade. And the funding to
purchase State trust lands in holdings has been eliminated due
to ongoing concerns of fiscal responsibility.
So, the bottom line is that the existing options to remove
State lands from within Federal conservation areas just don't
seem to work effectively.
The WSLCA is proposing legislation similar to existing
Federal statutes that permit in lieu selections of Federal
public lands. The process, which was used at statehood, allowed
the States to select Federal lands, in lieu of those that were
already encumbered due to existing ownership at statehood, from
designations like homesteads or an Indian reservation.
Replacement lands would be chosen from unappropriated Federal
public lands within the State.
We believe we have built a broad spectrum of support for
our proposal, including the WGA, whose materials we submitted
with testimony.
We are now turning to this committee to assist in crafting
bipartisan legislation that will implement a satisfactory
proposal.
In conclusion, it is important to note that the current
proposal is not a proposal to dispose of the Federal public
land base. Rather, it is a mechanism for the United States to
acquire State trust lands with high conservation values, while
timely and equitably compensating the States for the same
through alternative selections.
Because the in lieu mechanism has worked previously by
Congress, we don't believe it will be difficult to implement.
Existing and proposed conservation designations on Federal
lands which trap State endowment trust lands have the effect of
depriving Western States of fulfilling our fiduciary duty to
educate its citizenry. The proposed legislation promotes
conservation, while giving the States the benefit of their
statehood bargain with the United States.
I thank the committee for your attention to this issue and
this matter, and we look forward to working with you to craft
legislation to gain broad support and ultimately enact a better
way to fund education for our children. Thank you for your time
and opportunity to testify. I would be happy to answer any
questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Opp follows:]
Prepared Statement of Kathy Opp, President, Western State Land
Commissioners Association and Deputy Director, Idaho Department of
Lands
Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva, and members of the
subcommittee, my name is Kathy Opp and I am the current President of
the Western State Land Commissioners Association in addition to my
duties as the Deputy Director of the Idaho Department of Lands. I thank
the subcommittee for conducting this hearing to examine how to resolve
the land tenure issues between State school and institutional trust
lands and Federal land ownership. I am before you today to propose a
new tool for States to more effectively manage our school trust lands
and to improve the management of Federal conservation lands.
The Western States Land Commissioners Association (``WSLCA'') is
comprised of 23 western, and some not so western, States who share the
common mandate of managing trust lands on behalf of school children in
our States. These lands are managed on a bi-partisan basis, with the
beneficiaries first and foremost to our mission. Upon statehood, our
member States were entrusted with hundreds of millions of acres of
lands and minerals to be managed specifically to provide funding for
public education and other State institutions. Today, our member States
manage over 447 million acres of public trust lands, endowed trust
lands, submerged lands, and minerals. To put this in perspective, 447
million acres is roughly 2\1/2\ times the size of Texas. As a group, we
are the second largest land manager in the Nation, second only to the
Federal Government. Since 1949, our Association has gathered with the
goal to educate and inform one another about sound policy and best
practices to ever improve the management of these lands on behalf of
our beneficiaries. Currently, our combined educational trusts amount to
over $271 billion which generated over $3.8 billion for public schools
in 2012. Our members manage land for many purposes, including mineral
and energy development, timber, agricultural production, commercial and
residential development, open space, critical wildlife habitat,
recreation, and a myriad of other uses that generate funds for public
schools and other endowed institutions.
The vast majority of the 447 million acres of lands and minerals
that our member States manage by the nature of our statehood acts are
interspersed with Federal lands throughout the West. During early
settlement in the Midwest from 1803 to 1858, States were granted one
section per township. In the arid West, between 1859 and 1890, States
were provided with two sections per township, and in the really arid
West, meaning Utah, Arizona, and New Mexico, these States were granted
four sections per township. Ninety-three percent of the Federal lands
lie within the 11 most Western States and Alaska. There, Federal
ownership comprises 52 percent of these States. In Idaho, approximately
62 percent of all lands within the State are owned by the Federal
Government. In many cases, the scattered State sections are intertwined
with lands managed by the Department of the Interior and the U.S.
Forest Service where land management mandates vary drastically from the
legal mandates placed upon State trust land managers. Pursuant to our
statehood acts and State constitutional mandates, States are obligated
to manage these lands with undivided loyalty to a single purpose--to
generate revenue for public schools and state institutions.
According to the U.S. Supreme Court in Andrus v. Utah, ``the school
land grant was a `solemn agreement' which in some ways may be
analogized to a contract between private parties. The United States
agreed to cede some of its land to the State in exchange for a
commitment by the State to use the revenues derived from the land to
educate the citizenry.'' However, because the settlement and
privatization of Federal lands largely came to an end with the passage
of the Taylor Grazing Act in 1934, millions of acres of trust lands
remain within Federal ownership. For almost a century, Congress has
made decisions to reclassify Federal lands with a wide range of
management and policy prescriptions. While the Park Service approaches
its 100th anniversary and as the country now appreciates nearly 50
years of designated Wilderness, the mandate for school trust lands has
remained constant for over 200 years. Congressional actions and policy
decisions over the decades have locked up millions of acres of school
lands and minerals within National Parks, Wilderness areas, Wildlife
Refuges, National Monuments and other Federal designations. In order to
keep the ``solemn promise'' to the school children of our States, we
must craft effective tools to move these trapped state trust lands and
minerals from within constrictive Federal ownership into other
locations where the generation of income is appropriate and acceptable.
Existing administrative and legislative solutions are costly,
complicated, unpredictable, and horribly time consuming. Administrative
land exchanges with agencies within the Department of the Interior or
with the U.S. Forest Service are inadequate as the sole tool to
complete land transfers between States and the Federal Government. The
Department of Interior has implemented policies and guidelines that
have made administrative exchanges nearly impossible to complete in any
reasonable timeframe. Moreover, the Department has failed to make the
exchange process a priority and therefore funding has been woefully
inadequate for years. Many of our member States can cite specific
examples of administrative exchanges taking over a decade to complete.
Frustrated with the administrative process, some States have turned
to Congress to effectuate these exchanges. The Owyhee Land Exchange is
an Idaho example. The Owyhee Initiative designated 517,000 acres of
wilderness (map shown Attachment A) with the goal to create and
maintain a functioning, unfragmented landscape. Since 2008 the BLM and
the Idaho Department of Lands have identified approximately 35,000
acres on each side of the ownership equation that is in the best
interest of both entities to exchange within the area. The best case
scenario for estimated completion is now 2015. In the interim, Federal
permittees and State trust land lessees remain in limbo, unable to
effectively plan an economically viable future.
As the committee is well aware, the congressional process is
unpredictable, often expensive, and can still take years to complete
even if there is broad support for a proposed exchange. Last, funding
to purchase State inholdings within Federal conservation areas has
essentially disappeared as budgets for these purposes have been reduced
dramatically over recent decades to address ongoing concerns of fiscal
responsibility. The bottom line is that our existing options for
removing State lands from within Federal conservation areas just do not
work effectively.
For several years, WSLCA has been working with our member States,
Members of Congress, and outside groups to craft a proposal that we
believe will be an effective tool to allow States to efficiently remove
their lands from inside Federal conservation areas and relocate these
values to locations that are more appropriate for the generation of
revenue for schools and state institutions. Additionally, our proposal
will enhance Federal conservation and management areas by eliminating
the State owned inholdings. We believe we have built a broad spectrum
of support for our concept and we are now turning to this committee to
assist in crafting bi-partisan legislation that will implement our
proposal.
As a supplement to exchanges and purchases, WSLCA is proposing
legislation similar to the existing Federal statutes (43 U.S.C. 851-
852) that permit State ``in lieu'' selections of Federal public lands.
These statutes, originally codified as Revised Statutes 2275-2276,
allow western land grant States to select Federal lands in lieu of
lands originally granted to the States that ended up not being
available due to preexisting conveyances or Federal special purpose
designations. By way of example, if the Federal Government had created
an Indian reservation or issued a homestead patent before a State's
title to a particular State parcel had vested, the state was entitled
to select an equal amount of available Federal land in lieu of the
lands that were lost (in lieu selections are often synonymously
referred to as ``indemnity'' selections).
By creating new conservation designations that have limited the
States from utilizing school lands for their intended purposes, the
United States has in a very real sense failed to live up to the promise
of the statehood land grants. The WSLCA proposal would help rectify
this situation by confirming the right of the States to relinquish
State trust lands within Federal conservation designations to the
United States, and select replacement Federal lands outside such areas.
This would allow the Federal Government to obtain unified ownership and
management authority over areas deemed important for conservation
management. It would also uphold the ``bargain'' struck by the United
States and the Western States under which the States would be granted
useable land for the support of public schools and other public
institutions. Concerns also exist within many Western States about
recent petitions to list threatened and endangered species,
particularly the sage grouse. Where priority habitat for sage grouse
exists within these conservation designations, this circumstance could
likely create additional constraints to managing State lands. This bill
would facilitate another means by which States could dispose of lands
constrained by threatened and/or endangered species considerations.
The mechanism of relinquishment and selection has been utilized
previously by Congress, and should not be difficult to implement. Under
the WSLCA proposal, States owning lands within Federal conservation
designations would simply deed the lands back to the United States,
subject to any valid existing rights. This conveyance would entitle the
states to select replacement lands from the unappropriated Federal
public lands within the State utilizing the existing process for such
selections set forth in 43 CFR part 2620 (2010). WSLCA believes that
the Federal legislation should also incorporate the following concepts
previously adopted by the Department of the Interior in its guidance
and agreements concerning state indemnity selections:
--In the application of law, regulations and policy concerning
indemnity selections, the equities of the States should be
considered to the greatest degree permitted;
--Valuation of lands relinquished by the States, and State
selections, should be based on ``roughly equivalent
value'', utilizing appropriate valuation materials, but not
requiring expensive formal appraisals;
--Because BLM Resource Management Plans (RMPs) rarely mention State
indemnity selections, it is appropriate to presume that
State selections are plan-compliant unless significant
public values will be lost or impaired by the selection;
and
--Conveyance of lands to the States through the selection process
should be deemed to be in the national interest under
section 102(a)(1) of FLPMA.
All of the above concepts were agreed by the BLM in a Memorandum of
Understanding between BLM and WSLCA dated January 8, 1981, and
incorporated in departmental guidance in 1981 and 1982. These concepts
were recently reiterated in the Master Bureau-wide Memorandum of
Understanding Between United States Department of the Interior, Bureau
of Land Management and The Western States Land Commissioners
Association Concerning Management of Public and State Trust Lands and
Resources in the Western United States, Agreement Number BLM-WO-300-
2012-02. In addition to these items, WSLCA believes that it is
appropriate to impose reasonable time deadlines on the BLM's processing
of State selection applications, because the recent experience of the
States has been that BLM is often hampered given competing demands and
limited budgets to process state selection actions in a timely manner.
At the same time, WSLCA acknowledges environmental and economic
realities associated with the transfer of lands out of Federal
ownership. WSLCA does not object to requirements for NEPA analysis of
State selections (so long as BLM continues its customary practice of
funding necessary studies). In addition, because selections would be
limited to unappropriated public lands, the right to select lands would
not extend to areas such as wilderness, national forests, and other
conservation or special purpose designations.
In conclusion, it is important to note that the current proposal is
not a proposal for the disposition of the Federal public land base,
rather a mechanism for the United States to acquire State trust lands
with high conservation values, while timely and equitably compensating
the States for the same through the selection of replacement lands. The
U.S. Supreme Court has clearly held that the original purpose of the in
lieu selection process was to give the States the benefit of the
bargain struck at statehood--if lands were not available to the states
for educational purposes, the States could select replacement lands.
Existing and proposed conservation designations on Federal lands have
the effect of depriving the Western States of the ability to use
granted trust lands for their original purpose--public education. The
proposed legislation promotes conservation while giving the States the
benefit of their statehood bargain with the United States.
We thank the subcommittee for your attention to this important
matter and we look forward to working with you to craft legislation
that can gain broad support and ultimately be enacted to better fund
the education of our children. Thank you for the opportunity to testify
and I would be happy to answer any questions.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2947.001
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, again, for your testimony.
Ms. Baier, we will turn to you from the Sonoran Institute
for the same 5-minute opening statement, please.
STATEMENT OF MARIA BAIER, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SONORAN
INSTITUTE
Ms. Baier. Oh, thank you. Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member
Grijalva, Congresswomen, Congressmen, thank you for the
privilege of testifying before this subcommittee today.
Mr. Bishop. I don't want to interrupt you again, either, I
am sorry, but can you pull that even closer to your mouth?
Ms. Baier. Yes. Does that work better?
Mr. Bishop. That is much better.
Ms. Baier. OK, thank you. For the record, my name is Maria
Baier, and I am the CEO of the Sonoran Institute, which is a
501(c)3 non-profit organization that does land conservation
work across Western North America. The Sonoran Institute has
been interested in land management issues since its inception,
and we have produced a number of publications on the subject,
some of which I brought today and would leave for staff to
share with you, if you wish.
Prior to my tenure at the Sonoran Institute, I served as
the Arizona State Land Commissioner. While there, along with
the Sonoran Institute, we worked with the Grand Canyon chapter
of the Sierra Club to negotiate a land exchange proposal that
went to the voters of Arizona and was passed.
In Arizona, State trust land and resource sales have earned
$4.1 billion--that is market value--over the trust's 100-year
history. On top of that, revenues from leases, rights of ways,
and other temporary instruments earn tens of millions of
additional dollars each year. And to give some perspective,
last year, which was definitely not Arizona's best economic
year, $365 million flowed into the trust.
If there is one thing I have learned throughout the course
of my career, it is the importance of having land managed by
agencies with the appropriate authority to do so. And what I
mean by this is that each agency within the Federal Government
is obviously governed by laws, rules, regulations, and policies
that define the scope of activities and practices permissible
on and for the lands they manage. the same is true at the State
level.
In an ideal world, each agency's inventory of lands would
benefit from the specific authority vested in the managing
agency. However, the assignment of lands to agencies has not
been and is not now determined by a design based in logic. To
the contrary, the history of land management assignments has
been very much on an ad hoc, parcel-by-parcel basis, which has
created a most interesting and often illogical and inefficient
jurisdictional patchwork across the West.
Whether it was during my time working for trust for public
land, or as the land commissioner, or now, I have watched a lot
of opportunities fade and sometimes vanish, while land managers
tried to find the discretion to manage land or resources in a
way that honored them.
In my opinion, the best response to the jurisdictional
patchwork problem faced all across the West is that which has
been presented to the subcommittee today, the basis of which is
to get our public and State trust lands into the agencies in
which they can be most effectively managed. By doing so, lands
that have conservation qualities can be managed for
conservation; lands that have revenue-producing potential can
be managed by agencies with a mandate to produce revenue. I
cannot tell you the amount of man-hours that I suspect will be
saved by this one proposed process.
More importantly, though, is that places that are
considered culturally sacred can be removed from peril once and
for all. In Arizona, one prime example would be Adamsville, an
archeological Mecca, which should be managed, perhaps, as a
national park, rather than State trust land, where it
theoretically is on the auction block any time an application
is received to purchase or lease it.
Likewise, places that are important habitat for threatened
and endangered species, like cienega in Arizona, could remain
permanently undisturbed in the hands of the BLM, whereas now
they too are subject to the lease-and-sale mandates of the
State Land Department. Places as notable even as the Grand
Canyon, Walnut Canyon, and the Petrified Forest are all
threatened by activities that can and, under law, really should
be authorized by the State Land Department because of their
revenue-producing capacity. The same can be said of lands near
the Verde, San Pedro, Santa Cruz, and even Colorado Rivers.
So, the question to me is this: If there is a safe and
realistic alternative, wouldn't it be better if we could remove
them from jeopardy and continue to draw visitors from all
continents to our beautiful Western States? It is unnerving to
know that these assets, which should be permanently protected,
enjoy but the flimsiest of safeguards, the lowly MOU or
something akin to that. In many cases, it is not even that. In
many cases, among land managers, it is really just a hand-shake
and a promise to do the best we can. We have all seen that, I
think, as land management agencies.
In my view, this concept is worthy of pursuit. I believe
the amended authorization could do much to serve the greater
good. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Baier follows:]
Prepared Statement of Maria Baier, Chief Executive Officer, Sonoran
Institute
Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva and Members:
Thank you for the privilege of testifying before this subcommittee
today about a legislative concept that has been referred to as ``School
Trust Lands Ownership Within Federal Conservation Areas.''
For the record, my name is Maria Baier, and I am the CEO of the
Sonoran Institute, which is a 501(C)(3) non-profit organization founded
22 years ago and headquartered in Tucson, Arizona, whose mission and
vision is to inspire and enable community decisions and public policies
that respect the land and people of western North America.
Facing rapid change, communities in the West value their natural
and cultural resources, which support resilient environmental and
economic systems. The Sonoran Institute helps communities conserve and
restore those resources and manage growth and change through
collaboration, civil dialog, sound information, practical solutions and
big-picture thinking. We have two offices in Arizona, and offices in
Montana, Colorado and Mexicali, Mexico.
The Sonoran Institute has been interested in land management issues
since its inception, and we have produced a number of publications on
the subject. I have brought some of those for your review. Most
recently, we were pleased to have been a central party, along with the
Grand Canyon Chapter of the Sierra Club, in promoting the passage of a
statewide ballot measure that reinstated public-to-public land
exchanges for the State Land Department.
Prior to my tenure at the Sonoran Institute, I served as the
Arizona State Land Commissioner, and as such, was responsible for
directing the State agency that manages Arizona's 9.3 million acres of
State Trust land. Under the New Mexico-Arizona Enabling Act and
Arizona's Constitution and statutes, the Land Commissioner has a
fiduciary obligation to ensure those lands produce revenue for 13
different beneficiaries, the prime beneficiary being public schools, to
which approximately 87 percent of those lands belong.
In Arizona, State Trust land and resource sales have earned $4.1
billion (market value) over the Trust's 100-year history. On top of
that, revenues from leases, permits, rights of way and other
``temporary'' instruments earn tens of millions of additional dollars
each year. To give some perspective, last year, for example, which
definitely was not Arizona's best economic year, an impressive $365
million flowed into the Trust.
Prior to my service as Land Commissioner, I was fortunate to have
spent 10 years in the Governor's Office as a senior policy advisor and
to have had other rewarding jobs with public, private and non-profit
entities--most of which, in one way or another, have been focused on
land and natural resources.
If there is one thing I have learned throughout the course of my
career, it is the importance of having land managed by agencies with
the appropriate authority to do so. What I mean by this is that each
agency within the Federal Government is governed by laws, rules,
regulations and policies that define the scope of activities and
practices permissible on and for lands they manage. The same is true at
the State level. In an ideal world, each agency's inventory of lands
would benefit from the specific authority vested in the managing
agency.
However, the assignment of land to agencies has not been, and is
not now, determined by a design based in logic. To the contrary. The
history of land management assignments has been very much on an ad hoc,
parcel-by-parcel basis, which has created a most interesting and often
illogical and inefficient jurisdictional patchwork across the West.
Whether it was during my time working for the Trust for Public
Land, or as the Land Commissioner, or now, at the Sonoran Institute, I
have watched a great many opportunities fade and often vanish while
land managers tried to find the discretion to manage land and/or
resources in a way that honored them.
I cannot think of an ``unfinished business'' box that would be more
full than the one into which these opportunities would be dropped. And
that is for at least two reasons: First, in the vast majority of
situations, the nature and condition of the land and its resources have
been in place since the earth was formed, and this being the case,
there are few instances where ``the problem takes care of itself.'' In
other words, discussions that began a century ago continue to this day.
The second culprit of decade-long logjams is simply this:
creativity and compromise by government agencies is too rarely
encouraged and almost never authorized under law. Anything other than
strict adherence to the letter of the law is intentionally prohibited,
and that law generally substantially limits discretion.. There is, of
course, a good motive for this, namely to prevent self-dealing and
other types of corruption, However, in the pursuit to prevent
corruption, we often lose discretionary provisions that might have
fostered greater creativity and compromise.
So, day after day, month after month, year after year, decade after
decade, land managers meet and discuss virtually the same issues on the
same lands and about the same resources. Their best resolution tool to
date seems to be the Memorandum of Understanding, or something like it,
but, as its name suggests, it is generally quite limited in time, scope
and enforcement.
If I had a nickel for every time I was at a meeting among land
managers from various agencies and heard the phrase, ``I would do that
if I could,'' I could have traveled to DC on my own jet.
But there must be airtight laws on how we manage assets of the
public trust, including land and natural resources. Seeking additional
discretion in laws on a piecemeal basis will not accomplish much, and
seeking it on a broader basis could result in all manner of unintended
consequences.
In my opinion, the best response to the jurisdictional patchwork
problem faced all across the West is that which has been presented to
this subcommittee today, the basis of which is to get our public and
State Trust lands into the agencies in which they can be most
effectively managed.
By doing so, lands that have conservation qualities can be managed
for conservation. Lands that have revenue-producing potential can be
managed by agencies with a mandate to produce revenue. I cannot tell
you the amount of man hours that will be saved by this one proposed
process.
More important, though, is that places that are considered
culturally sacred can be plucked from peril once and for all. In
Arizona, one prime example would be Adamsville, an archeological mecca,
which should be managed as a National Park, rather than State Trust
land, where it is theoretically on the auction block anytime an
application is received to buy it. Likewise, places that are important
habitat for threatened and endangered species, like Cienega in Arizona,
could remain permanently undisturbed in the hands of the BLM, whereas
now, they, too, are subject to the lease and sale mandates of the State
Land Department.
Places as notable as the Grand Canyon, Walnut Canyon, and the
Petrified Forest are all threatened by activities that can, and, under
law, really should be, authorized by the State Land Department because
they bring in money. The same can easily be said of the Verde, San
Pedro, Santa Cruz and even Colorado Rivers.
So the question is this: If there is a safe and realistic
alternative, why would we want to continue to jeopardize the integrity
of any of the spectacular national monuments or conservation areas that
grace our states and draw visitors from all continents?
It is unnerving to know that these assets, which should be
permanently protected, enjoy but the flimsiest of safeguards, the lowly
MOU. And in many cases, not even that. Only a handshake and a promise
to ``do the best we can.''
Meanwhile, the earnest, devoted and talented staffs within our
State land management agencies are, on a daily basis, stuck between a
rock and a hard place.
When they receive a purchase or lease application for a site in or
near a conservation-eligible place, they must choose between litigation
brought by those who seek to protect the pristine asset while forego
the revenue generation mandate of the trust, and those who seek to
compromise the asset and adhere to money-making mandate. I cannot
overstate how prevalent this dilemma is.
But just to be clear, in nearly every case, the law and the courts
instruct State land departments to do the latter. That is why each
special place in which there are State Trust land inholdings or State
Trust land on the perimeter, whether in or out of a federally
designated area, remains in jeopardy.
In my view, this concept is worthy of pursuit. With proper
legislative drafting, the risks can be limited to those that are
reasonable. Of those issues that remain under debate with which I am
familiar, there would appear to be ample room for constructive
compromise.
I believe this amended authorization could do much to serve the
greater good.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. I appreciate all of you being here
and the testimony that you have given. We will now open this up
to questions from members of the committee. Mrs. Lummis.
Mrs. Lummis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I am delighted to
see the members of this panel today. I share some backgrounds
with the gentlewomen on this panel. I was our State Land
Director for a period of time. And I want to thank Ms. Opp for
being the President of the Western State Land Commissioners.
That is a fine organization.
I also served on numerous boards with Luther Propst, who
is, of course, your predecessor at Sonoran. And we go way back,
as well, have many, many common interests and ideas. And I am
so delighted to see all of you here today to discuss this
topic.
Wyoming has, of course, had a great deal of experience with
the frustrations of trying to provide to the Federal Government
inholdings in Grand Teton National Park, which are State lands.
The ability to derive revenue from those lands, which are of
just almost obscene financial value, has been minuscule. And
yet, our effort to try to exchange two sections of State school
trust lands with the Federal Government, or have the Federal
Government buy them, has been a multi-decade process that is
still not complete. And the appraisals become stale after a
period of time.
And then, as the foot-dragging goes on and on, we are
unable to provide to the Federal Government the inholdings for
Grand Teton National Park, and, at the same time, provide, as
the panel pointed out, revenue for the schoolchildren of
Wyoming. So, I am very intrigued and pleased by the plan and
the proposed land exchanges that you are presenting.
Questions. Ms. Opp, under the Western State Land
Commissioner's proposal, what is the role of NEPA, as applied
to both the decision of the State to divest, and the decision
of the State to select lands?
Ms. Opp. Mr. Chairman, Congresswoman, members of the
subcommittee, we are not denying that there is a NEPA process,
and that the Federal Government would want and desire to
perform that. One of the things that could be achieved through
the process, the Secretary of the Interior does not have to
advance any alternative that would not be in the best interest
of the Federal Government. So, as a State makes a selection, if
it is deemed not in the best interest of the Federal
Government, it doesn't have to advance.
Also, in the NEPA process, it can sort of be a green light/
red light. It is either yes, it is something that is
acceptable, and that alternative should be examined, or no, it
shouldn't, rather than incorporating what typically is a NEPA
process, a variety of alternatives. You could potentially
streamline that in the NEPA process, just associated with this
particular proposal.
Mrs. Lummis. And with your proposal, does it apply to
national parks, national forests, areas of critical
environmental concern, national recreation areas? What is the
scope of Federal land designations which have State inholdings
that would be available for the exchange?
Ms. Opp. Mr. Chairman, Congresswoman, members of the
subcommittee, certainly we would propose, as States, to get out
of those wilderness designations or national parks. We would
not be selecting other pieces as part of this in lieu selection
that would be included in those still. So we would be going to
parcels on the in lieu selection as States that are from the
unappropriated BLM ownership, if that answers your question.
Mrs. Lummis. I also want the mirror image answer to that
question. Of the lands that you, the State land commissioners,
would be designating that you wanted to trade because they are
trapped in Federal designations, would that include Forest
Service, national forests, BLM lands?
If it is--let's say they are not managed for multiple use.
Is it anything that is not managed for multiple use that would
be available for you to exchange to the Federal Government if
it is trapped in a non-multiple-use Federal designation?
Ms. Opp. Mr. Chairman, Congresswoman, members of the
subcommittee, we would be looking at anything--we would be
looking at deeding back to the Federal Government anything that
is within a wilderness designation, roadless. At this point,
you know, it would be national forests, as well. But, you know,
perhaps we can have further discussion about that. Anything
that basically is constrictive to our ability to manage.
Mrs. Lummis. Yes, excellent. You know, the broader, the
better, Mr. Chairman, from this perspective of the States.
Because, as you know, the Federal Government finds ways to
limit States' activities on their own land, as long as it is
trapped in a Federal designation of any kind.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Great hearing. I yield back.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. I am glad you were referring to
policy in ``broader, the better.'' I thought you were referring
to the size of my suit here.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Grijalva, do you have questions?
Mr. Grijalva. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Maybe one basic
question for all the panelists. The proposal that is being
talked about and that is reflected in your written testimony is
based on the idea that the Federal Government has a means to
address land exchanges through the existing in lieu concept.
However, both Western States Land Commissioners Association and
the Children's Land Alliance have criticized in lieu process
when addressing original school trust and land grants.
We are asking Congress--you are asking Congress--to endorse
and expand a concept you have all been critical of, to some
extent, and in some cases litigated over. Given that your
proposal makes the in lieu process better for stranded parcels,
is this the national interest determination that is being
discussed as part of a proposal? Is it the expedited or NEPA
waivers that makes it better for those stranded parcels? Is it
the presumption--I think it was--and one of them was planned
adequacy?
This isn't just keeping--applying existing authority to new
lands, it is expanding authority. And I think we have to be
clear of that. And we need to really understand what that
expansion means.
So, given that long-winded question, those three points, if
any--if all the panelists would comment briefly, I would
appreciate it very much.
Ms. Opp. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Grijalva, and members
of the committee, I think there is a variety of ways to
approach the concept. Many States, the vast majority of States,
have resolved their original in lieu selections. Some States
still do have some outstanding. And a recent re-constitution of
an MOU with the BLM, we believe, will help resolve those
situations.
The key to this process is it is just a--it is another
tool, besides purchase and besides the existing exchange
process.
Mr. Grijalva. OK.
Ms. Opp. We believe it is in the best interest of the
Nation for both our land bases to be reconciled to their
mission, such that the Federal Government can----
Mr. Grijalva. But specifically the national interest
concept, would you say that expands the authority?
Ms. Opp. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I would
say that it, in my experience, doesn't expand the authority in
the national interest. It is still in the national interest now
for land exchanges or purchases to happen. So I wouldn't say
it's an expansion, it's simply another tool that can be used.
Mr. Grijalva. An appearance for the first time of that
tool.
Ms. Opp. Say that again, please, sir.
Mr. Grijalva. The tool, national interest tool, appears now
for the first time in this kind of exchange process as a
defined part of any legislation.
Ms. Opp. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, it is a
new tool to resolving the inholdings trapped in conservation
areas. That is a true statement.
Mr. Grijalva. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I think those three
points that I tried to make with a question, and I appreciate
the response from the one witness, I think are pertinent for
further discussions, I think are essential to clarify and
define those for further discussion. And with that, I yield
back, I have no further questions.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Mrs. Lummis, do you have other
questions you wanted to ask?
Mrs. Lummis. I do, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. Please.
Mrs. Lummis. Thank you. Again, for Ms. Opp, as I understand
it under your proposal, NEPA does not apply to the divestiture.
But--so the Federal Government gets its land immediately, but
the States will still have to go through a process in order to
select their lands. Do I understand the proposal correctly?
Ms. Opp. Mr. Chairman, Congresswoman, members of the
subcommittee, the State itself would not perform NEPA. If the
Federal agency, you know, needed to perform NEPA, then on the
divestiture, then--from Federal lands, then they would do that.
Mrs. Lummis. OK.
Ms. Opp. As part of the process.
Mrs. Lummis. What is a reasonable amount of time for the
States to be able to select other BLM land of equal value, and
for that land to be valued?
Ms. Opp. Mr. Chairman, Congresswoman, members of the
subcommittee, we believe that valuations could be on appraised
value. But in some cases, where you have low-value lands, there
are a variety of means to value that land. And so there are
ways to get at that.
We would like to see something on the order of 12 to 18
months, in terms of resolution, once the deed went back to the
Federal Government, that the State received its replacement
lands. We believe that certainly is doable with dialog in the
beginning, to make sure that the lands we are talking about are
reasonable for both entities.
Mrs. Lummis. Ms. Baier, might I ask you the same question?
I want to--I would--I am interested in your opinion about what
is a reasonable amount of time for these exchanges to occur, as
well as your assessment of an appropriate valuation process.
Ms. Baier. Thank you, Congresswoman. Chairman,
Congresswoman, thank you. It is interesting in Arizona, because
we negotiated several years ago--when I was on the Governor's
staff, actually, with Secretary Babbitt, we actually began the
negotiation for a fairly sizable land exchange that included
lots of different Federal lands and lots of different State
trust lands. So I know in Arizona it wouldn't take very long
for us to identify--I am quite sure it wouldn't take very long
for us to identify those lands.
Mrs. Lummis. Were those transactions completed?
Ms. Baier. No, they were not.
Mrs. Lummis. And were----
Ms. Baier. Which is part of the reason we are here today, I
think, you know. It really is a very cumbersome process for----
Mrs. Lummis. It is cumbersome. Why weren't they completed?
Ms. Baier. You know, we identified them, and they got--I
think they got held up in the appraisal process. It was the
appraisal process that held it up. It was even identifying an
appraiser that people felt could be objective, you know, on
both sides. And then the length of time and, really, the cost
of the appraisals, too, because they can be quite costly.
Mrs. Lummis. Yes.
Ms. Baier. I think in terms of my real view of this--
because I have not visited with each State or the organizations
that may have an interest in this, but I think the outline that
Kathy provided is probably reasonable. I think it is my--what I
think might be a good idea is to pull some States in, and to
pull some Federal agencies in, and have them discuss what a
reasonable timeline would be, given the constraints on the
resources.
You know, there is only limited staff that can be devoted
to these on the Federal side and on the State side. So, I mean,
I think the best thing is to come up with a timeline that is--
can actually be reasonable for State and Federal agencies. I
think Kathy's is probably reasonable. But I think it is a--you
know, as I understand it, there is not a provision, a timeline
that has been set in stone in any--in legislation. And I think
the whole idea is to have this be a very functional
authorization. And so I think it is worth doing that and
finding out what a realistic timeline is.
Mrs. Lummis. The Sonoran Institute, even predating your
taking the leadership reigns, was interested in State lands
issues and these kinds of matters. Was it driven more from a--
is it driven more from the conservation perspective, the K
through 12 funding perspective, or both?
Ms. Baier. Well, we are a conservation organization. So our
interest is primarily the conservation component, trying to get
land into hands of agencies that can manage it for
conservation. But we take very seriously the mandate of the
trust--obviously, you know, particularly given my history--and
respect that.
But it is really--the two are really not separate. I mean
the whole reason that something like this is needed is so that
there isn't that tension, and so that lands that can--should be
in the hands of the State Land Department and should be
producing revenue--can go over there, and lands that should be
undisturbed can go into management agencies that can leave it
undisturbed.
Mrs. Lummis. Quick yes or no? Thank you, sir.
Does the Sonoran Institute support the Western State Land
Commissioner proposal?
Ms. Baier. Mr. Chairman, Congresswoman, the--we have not
seen final language. So the--we support the concept----
Mrs. Lummis. OK.
Ms. Baier [continuing]. That has been shared with us. Thank
you.
Mrs. Lummis. Thank you all. Thanks, panel. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Mr. McClintock, do you have any
questions for this--these witnesses?
Mr. McClintock. I will be happy to yield to my colleague,
Mrs. Lummis.
Mr. Bishop. Go ahead. That is OK, thanks.
Mrs. Lummis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Opp, can you
explain to people who may be concerned about the types of lands
that States would be interested in acquiring in exchange for
the lands they would be giving up, what those might be?
Ms. Opp. Mr. Chairman, Congresswoman, members of the
subcommittee, our primary interest is always going to be what
is--what will be best for our trust in management. Sometimes it
is acquiring ownership next to an existing parcel, so that we
are able to efficiently manage a larger block of resources.
Certainly when you look at the BLM ownership in Idaho, it is
largely range land. So that is going to be our primary
motivation.
In other States it may be--we don't have a lot of oil and
gas in Idaho; some States do, so they would be looking
potentially at that. But, of course, our concept would be
anything that is producing for the Federal Government would be
off-limits. We are not looking to erode any Federal earnings
potential.
So, we would be looking at things that would best mesh with
other ownership patterns that we have, other earning asset
types that we are familiar with managing, anything that is
going to, you know, promote the best earnings for our trust
fund.
Mrs. Lummis. Does any of the panel know whether the Forest
Service has a disposal list, as does the BLM? The BLM has a
list of properties that they can't manage and would like to
divest themselves of. Does the Forest Service have a similar
list, does anyone know?
Ms. Opp. Mr. Chairman, Congresswoman, members of the
subcommittee, I am not aware of a disposal list at the Forest
Service level. I do know that the BLM has resource management
plans. This proposal would not contemplate that a property to
be acquired had to be on a disposal list.
Mrs. Lummis. Right, right.
Ms. Opp. It is simply that it would be available if it was
unappropriated or not in a national or roadless area, or those
major conservation criteria.
Mrs. Lummis. OK. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I yield back. I
realize you have been very indulgent. Thank you.
Mr. Bishop. Now, Mr. McClintock, we appreciate you yielding
back your time here. I am assuming you do, as well, right? OK.
Let me ask just one--perhaps one final question. Ms. Baier,
have you discussed this in lieu selection proposal with any
Federal land managers?
Ms. Baier. Mr. Chairman, I feel very fortunate that I have
two former Federal land managers on our board of directors:
Suzanne Lewis, who was with the Park Service for a number of
years; and then Henri Bisson, who was with the BLM, and I think
had been the Acting State Director for Utah, and also the State
Director for California.
And I checked in with my entire board of directors before
agreeing to testify here today, and they were all very
supportive, and particularly the two Federal land managers, who
have seen the benefits, both on the part of the Park Service
and the part of the BLM, of exchanges in the past. And so, I
have, and they wholeheartedly supported the testimony today.
Thank you.
Mr. Bishop. Do--would any of you like to give one final
statement as to the concept of appraisals as being a problem?
Appraisals, as we all know, are very subjective. And I have
seen them being--I mean you might as well use a Ouija board and
some tarot cards to come up with a proper appraisal. Do any of
you have examples or suggestions of how the appraisal process
is problematic? And you don't have to, but if there is anything
you would like to say in conclusion, I would appreciate it.
Ms. Baier. Mr. Chairman, what I would like to say is just
that I--what I think, both from the State side and from the
Federal side, is that there ought not to be a prohibition on
having an appraisal process on these relinquishments. But in
some cases, what we have--what at least I have learned, in my
experience, in some cases the appraisal takes time and money
and resources that would prevent a very wise exchange from
occurring.
And so, I guess what I would say is I am not sure that they
need to be prohibited where they would be--where they could be
helpful. But I think in many cases, you know, to find
reasonable values on both sides would work well.
And I think, given the fact that the State Land Department,
the State land commissioners, our trustees--and they are held
to a very high legal obligation, and the Secretary of the
Interior is also held to a very high legal obligation to
protect the public trust--I think that the appraisal process in
some cases may be too burdensome.
And I think there is even language that came from the
Supreme Court that allows some discretion in the appraisal
process on these relinquishment processes. That would be my
thought.
Ms. Opp. Mr. Chairman, I would just add that it is often
not so much the appraisal process, in our experience, as much
as the level and number of internal reviews that happen after
the appraisals are completed. We have seen, in a number of
cases in land exchanges in our State, in Idaho, needing to go
through two cycles of appraisals because they grow stale,
depending on when they are done in the process.
And as Ms. Baier pointed out, when they don't--when they no
longer meet the standards of professional appraisal due to,
say, being 12 months old or less, depending on market
conditions, and then you are asking the beneficiaries to go
through and pay for another round, which can be hundreds of
thousands of dollars, you start to question the utility of it
when you have professional land managers on both sides and a
lot of data that could be used to value that.
So, maybe it is how you approach giving latitude, depending
on the number of parcels and the values, and also the review
cycles that come along with it that could help speed the
process.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. I appreciate all those answers and
the questions that have been given.
If there are no other questions, I want to thank the
witnesses profusely for your effort and time to be here, and
the testimony that you have given.
Members of the subcommittee may have additional questions.
They will submit to you in writing if they do. We would ask for
your responses to be presented in writing. The record will be
open for 10 days to receive the questions or additional
responses.
If there is no further business, without objection--once
again, great appreciation to all of you who have attended and
participated today--this subcommittee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Addional Material Submitted for the Record]
Prepared Statement of Mary M. Abrams, Ph.D., Director, Oregon
Department of State Lands
I am Mary Abrams, Director of the Oregon Department of State Lands.
I want to thank the subcommittee for the opportunity to testify today.
I'm here today representing my agency as well as the Western States
Land Commissioners Association. Oregon is 1 of 23 member States in the
organization. My purpose today is to provide a state-specific example
of the background, need, and solution to a problem that affects all
Western States.
OREGON DEPARTMENT OF STATE LANDS
The Department of State Lands is the administrative agency of the
State Land Board, Oregon's oldest public board. It was established at
statehood by the 1859 Oregon Constitution to oversee ``school lands''
granted by the Federal Government. Throughout its history, the Governor
has chaired the board, and the two other members have been the
Secretary of State and the State Treasurer.
As settlers came West in the 1850s and beyond, Oregon needed to
educate emigrant children and those born in our new State. Recognizing
this, the U.S. Government granted our land-rich, cash-poor State
sections 16 and 36 of each township to generate money for schools.
Oregon's original land grant totaled about 3.4 million acres.
Today, only a fifth of that acreage (about 770,000 acres) remains.
These Trust Lands have a very specific purpose that differentiates them
from other public lands managed for a variety of uses: they are solely
dedicated to making money for Oregon's schoolchildren.
The Land Board manages its lands for long-term, multi-generational
support of public education. Revenues from these lands are deposited in
the Common School Fund, a trust fund for schools.
The estimated total market value of Oregon's school Trust Lands is
between $500 and $600 million. Oregon's Trust Lands revenues are
deposited into the Common School Fund. In fiscal year 2012, gross
receipts totaled over $13 million.
FUNDING SCHOOLS
The total market value of the fund is now about $1.1 billion. All
public school districts in Oregon receive two distributions a year from
the fund's interest earnings. The average annual distribution since
2008 has been about $50 million. Common School Fund distributions are a
small but important part of Oregon's school funding. These funds
support the equivalent of 48 full-time teachers in a large district
such as Portland, and 3 full-time teachers in a small coastal
community. In other words, the money matters.
Oregon's goal has been to steadily increase our funding for schools
through more strategic land management planning over time. This
includes implementing land exchanges and sales to maximize our high-
revenue producing lands while divesting of our non-producing lands.
MAXIMIZING REVENUE GENERATION
Revenue from Common School Fund lands over time has included both
annual receipts from land management operations (timber harvest
receipts and grazing leases for example) as well as funds from sales of
some land assets. However, because of the patchwork nature of the
original land grant to Oregon (16th and 36th sections), there have
always been management challenges with our Trust Lands.
Not all the granted sections were high value, and the dispersed
nature of the holdings caused inefficiencies as it is generally easier
to manage contiguous blocks of land with similar management goals than
it is to manage small, non-consolidated parcels.
Because of these constraints, land sales and exchanges have been an
important part of managing our real estate portfolio to maximize school
revenue. We have divested of or exchanged difficult-to-manage lands and
reinvested in lands with higher revenue potential. Historically,
consolidation occurred on forestlands; and more recently, land
acquisitions have been commercial properties.
WHY DOES THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MATTER
First and foremost, Federal lands are our biggest neighboring land
owners. Most of Oregon's remaining Trust Lands are interspersed with
Federal lands (Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service) which
increasingly have fundamentally different management goals than those
of State Trust Lands. Federal land management has evolved over time
from the early days of open range to designation of areas for special
land uses (parks, scenic areas, wilderness areas, etc.) including an
increased emphasis on multiple-use management. These shifts have often
left state Trust Lands isolated within larger Federal holdings with
dramatically different management objectives.
The modern era of Federal land management has also increased the
complexity of Federal land exchanges that historically were a tool to
resolve some of the management challenges between State and Federal
lands. Therefore, Congressional and administrative decisions that
affect Federal land management do affect our ability to maximize
revenue for schools, particularly when they reduce options for Trust
Land portfolio management.
Such Federal decisions can leave state lands stranded within
Federal designations, limiting effective management of these trust
assets for revenue generation. It also decreases their value for
selling or trading, and for almost any type of development or other
use.
In Oregon we have just less than 10,000 acres that are surrounded
by Federal lands with different management objectives. These lands are
valued at roughly $8 million, and their isolation within and dependence
on Federal land decisions greatly reduces their value.
State Trust Lands surrounded by Federal designations can be
encumbered by Federal threatened and endangered species policies,
access constraints, unintended consequences of Federal fire protection
policies, and potentially other Federal actions that limit
opportunities for generating revenues. Because of these encumbrances on
our Federal neighbors, State Trust Lands trapped within Federal
conservation designations are often virtually worthless to the State's
school trust, depriving current and future generations of school
children of valuable revenues to support public education.
THE SOLUTION
As we in the Western States see it, the best remedy to this
situation is to either facilitate an exchange of these landlocked State
parcels for other Federal lands, or sell our trust assets to the land-
holding Federal agency. However, normal Federal land exchange and sale
procedures are lengthy, complex administrative processes that require
money and time--both substantial drains on States' ability to manage
their Trust Lands. The scarcity of Federal funds for land acquisition
adds to the uncertainty and low likelihood of success in traditional
land sales and exchanges with Federal land management agencies.
So the Western States would like to propose a different approach.
IN LIEU SELECTION PROCESS AND A NEW TOOL
At statehood, some of the 16th and 36th sections were already owned
and therefore unavailable. For these sections, States were given ``in
lieu selection'' credits, allowing States to select other available
Federal parcels in lieu of the original sections.
States have largely exhausted those credits since statehood but
some are still outstanding. Oregon is still working with the BLM to
finalize exchanges for our last 1,600 acres of credits. The process to
secure ``in-lieu lands'' has been lengthy, but it does work.
The Western States Land Commissioners Association has developed a
proposal based on this in-lieu selection model to provide a solution to
Trust Land parcels that are landlocked by Federal lands. The proposal
would allow State land managers to relinquish title to lands trapped
within Federal conservation areas in exchange for BLM lands not already
protected as a Federal conservation area, and that have not been
otherwise appropriated.
The model provides a workable methodology for removing Trust Lands
from Federal conservation areas. This fulfills the States' funding
mandate for public education and provides Federal land managers with
conservation areas that are largely clear of inholdings.
The Western States proposal is simple and elegant--and is based on
an existing process. It's a win-win for both the Federal Government and
States:
It provides a mechanism for States to divest Trust Lands
whose management and value are affected by their landlocked
position within Federal lands.
It allows Federal land managers to more effectively manage
their lands.
It provides a viable option for removing State Trust Lands
from the political debates surrounding Congressional
conservation area creations.
It accomplishes all of this using fewer resources--both
State and Federal--to process exchanges than typical
Federal land exchanges or purchases.
The WSLCA proposal will help Oregon better meet its constitutional
mandate for school Trust Lands by increasing management flexibility on
almost 10,000 acres of such lands. Land assets worth $8 million can be
``unlocked'' to generate greater revenues for Oregon's school children
into the future.
In summary, because of these advantages, I encourage you to
consider any legislation that supports this proposal. It will help
Western States, such as Oregon, but also the rest of the Nation through
increased government efficiencies at the State and Federal levels.
Thank you.
______
Letter Submitted for the Record by James D. Ogsbury
Western Governors' Association,
Denver, CO 80202,
July 17, 2013.
The Honorable Rob Bishop, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Public Lands
and Environmental Regulation,
Committee on Natural Resources,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Chairman Bishop:
Attached please find a resolution, recently adopted by Western
Governors, supporting efforts to simplify Federal-State land exchanges.
On behalf of the Western Governors' Association (WGA), I respectfully
request that the document be included in the record of the Friday, July
19, 2013 hearing on various public lands bills scheduled for the
Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation.
The Governors' resolution supports reauthorization of the Federal
Lands Transfer Facilitation Act (FLTFA). H.R. 2068, sponsored by
Representative Lummis, would reauthorize FLTFA, and WGA commends her
for introducing this important legislation.
The Governors also support other efforts to reform Federal-State
land exchange processes. WGA is working with the Western States Land
Commissioners' Association, for example, on its proposed legislation to
solve part of the land tenure problems based on a process known as ``in
lieu'' selections. WGA also supports Federal legislation to amend the
Federal Lands Policy and Management Act to:
Index the existing $150,000 threshold for using an
expedited exchange process for inflation (the $150,000
threshold was adopted in 1986);
Allow use of a statement of value to replace the appraisal
process in Federal-State exchanges of similar rural lands;
and
Presume any agreed-upon Federal-state land exchange as in
the public interest unless clearly countervailing factors
are present (Federal-private exchanges are not included in
this presumption).
With appreciation for your leadership and best wishes for continued
success, I am
Respectfully,
James D. Ogsbury,
Executive Director.
______
Western Governors' Association Policy Resolution 13-01
Federal-State Land Exchanges and Purchases
A. BACKGROUND
1. Congress granted lands to States as they were admitted into union
to be held in trust for support of public schools. Over time,
the Federal Government has created conservation areas such as
national monuments, wildlife refuges and wilderness study areas
on public lands that surround or affect many of these trust
lands. tribal reservations and military withdrawals have also
created state enclaves within Federal landholdings.
2. Federal and State land managers, land users, the environmental
community and the public all agree that the ``checkerboard''
land ownership pattern prevailing in much of the West is a
major hindrance to effective and ecologically sound management
of both Federal and State lands.
3. Currently, there are three methods of resolving the checkerboard
land tenure issue in the West: (1) Land exchanges under
existing legislation, such as Federal Lands Policy and
Management Act (FLPMA); (2) the direct Federal purchase of non-
Federal lands within Federal management areas under Federal
Lands Transfer Facilitation Act (FLTFA); and (3) individual
acts of Congress. However, all three are lengthy, expensive,
and inefficient.
4. Federal land exchanges--whether with States or private interests--
are conducted under the FLPMA. FLPMA requires that land
exchanges be of equal value as determined by appraisal and that
the public interest is ``well served by making [the land]
exchange.'' The complex regulatory requirements associated with
FLPMA exchanges create unintentional barriers to Federal-state
land exchanges.
5. Generally, the estimated values of lands proposed for exchange are
established through appraisals, which must be done in
accordance with Federal standards and other requirements. If
the Federal land value is estimated to be less than $150,000,
an appraiser's statement of value (a professional assessment
that is based on more limited information than is included in a
full appraisal) can be used.
6. The FLTFA allows the Department of the Interior agencies and the
Forest Service to use the proceeds from sales of surplus
Federal lands to acquire inholdings in national parks, national
wildlife refuges, national forests and other designated areas,
including the National Landscape Conservation System. FLTFA was
passed in 2000 with a 10-year sunset. The act was reauthorized
for 1 year in 2010, but was not extended at the July 2011
expiration.
7. The Western States Land Commissioners' Association (WSLCA) has
drafted proposed legislation to solve part of the land tenure
problems based on a process known as ``in lieu'' selections. In
lieu selections are established by 43 U.S.C. 851-852 and allow
western land grant States to select Federal lands in lieu of
land originally granted to the States that became unavailable
due to preexisting conveyances or Federal special purpose
designations. Under the WSLCA proposal, States would have the
right to relinquish State trust lands within Federal
conservation designations to the United States, and select
replacements lands from unappropriated Federal public lands
within the states.
B. GOVERNORS' POLICY POSITION
1. To improve management of both Federal and State lands in areas
where there is checker-boarded ownership or State lands are
completely captive within the boundaries of a Federal
management area, Western Governors call on Congress to simplify
and expedite the Federal-State land exchange and sale process.
2. The Governors request Congress amend the FLPMA to add language to:
Index the existing $150,000 threshold for using an
expedited exchange process for inflation since the $150,000
threshold was adopted in 1986;
Allow use of a statement of value to replace the appraisal
process in Federal-State exchanges of similar rural lands;
and
Presume any agreed Federal-State land exchange as in
public interest unless clearly countervailing factors are
present (Federal-private exchanges are not included in this
presumption).
3. The Governors request that Congress reauthorize the FLTFA with
priority to be given to acquisition of State inholdings.
4. The Governors encourage Congress to introduce and pass legislation
that incorporates the proposed Federal-State land selection
improvements proposed by the WSLCA.
C. GOVERNORS' MANAGEMENT DIRECTIVE
1. The Governors direct the WGA staff, where appropriate, to work with
Congressional committees of jurisdiction and the executive
branch to achieve the objectives of this resolution including
funding, subject to the appropriation process, based on a
prioritization of needs.
2. Furthermore, the Governors direct WGA staff to develop, as
appropriate and timely, detailed annual work plans to advance
the policy positions and goals contained in this resolution.
Those work plans shall be presented to, and approved by,
western Governors prior to implementation. WGA staff shall keep
the Governors informed, on a regular basis, of their progress
in implementing approved annual work plans.