Idaho State Lands Management Amendment Stalls In Legislature

Proposed Amendment to State Lands Management

A proposed amendment to the Idaho Constitution aimed at altering the management of state lands did not progress beyond a legislative committee at the Idaho State Capitol. This development likely halts the proposal for the current legislative year.

Details of the Proposed Amendment

The amendment, known as House Joint Resolution 10, sought to change the existing constitutional requirement that mandates state endowment lands be managed for maximum financial returns. Instead, the proposal aimed to prioritize ongoing revenue generation through activities such as timber harvesting, grazing, or mining. Additionally, it emphasized preserving and promoting public access for recreation, hunting, fishing, and trapping.

Arguments for the Amendment

Rep. Britt Raybould, a Republican from Rexburg, sponsored the resolution. She argued that removing the requirement for maximum financial returns would alleviate the pressure on the Idaho State Board of Land Commissioners to sell endowment lands. According to Raybould, this change would provide more options for land management, allowing Idaho to retain its lands and generate revenue without the need for sales.

Opposition and Concerns

The proposal faced a tied vote of 7-7 in the House State Affairs Committee, preventing it from advancing. Public testimony during a one-hour hearing revealed a split in opinion. Support came from the Idaho Recreation Council and the Idaho Outfitters and Guides Association, who favored the increased emphasis on public access and recreation.

However, opposition arose from logging contractors, some timber companies, and Owyhee County Treasurer Brenda Richards. Concerns included potential legal challenges related to public access, risks to revenue for beneficiaries like public schools, and conflicts with the federal Idaho Admissions Bill, which governs the sale and lease of state endowment lands.

Potential Implications

Opponents, including some legislators, expressed worries that the amendment could lead to lawsuits and financial instability for beneficiaries. Rep. Judy Boyle, a Republican from Midvale, voiced concerns about prioritizing recreation over economic livelihoods, particularly in areas rich with minerals.

The failure to advance the amendment leaves the current management system in place, maintaining the focus on maximizing financial returns from state lands. This decision impacts how Idaho balances economic interests with public access and conservation efforts.