AZ bill to change public land ownership HB2210

[cmc]

If you enjoy chasing elk, mule deer, antelope and coues deer in Arizona you need to pay attention to this one. Take note of the new bill, HB2210, that just cropped up in our AZ state legislation -

https://www.azleg.go...lls/hb2210p.pdf


"DIRECTING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO COMMENCE AN ACTION TO ATTEMPT TO GAIN
OWNERSHIP OR CONTROL OF THE PUBLIC LANDS WITHIN THIS STATE"



Text of the bill....

REFERENCE TITLE: public lands; ownership; control; litigation

State of Arizona

House of Representatives

Fifty-third Legislature

Second Regular Session

2018

HB 2210

Introduced by

Representatives Finchem: Allen J, Barton, Bowers, Boyer, Clodfelter, Cobb, Cook, Farnsworth E, Grantham, John, Kern, Lawrence, Leach, Livingston, Mitchell, Norgaard, Nutt, Payne, Rivero, Shooter, Stringer, Thorpe, Toma, Townsend, Weninger, Senators Allen S, Borrelli, Burges, Farnsworth D, Griffin, Kavanagh, Petersen, Smith

AN ACT

directing the attorney general to commence an action to attempt to gain ownership or control of the public lands within this state.

(TEXT OF BILL BEGINS ON NEXT PAGE)

Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona:

Section 1. Public lands; ownership and control; attorney general; analysis; litigation; delayed repeal

A. On or before September 17, 2018, the attorney general shall analyze at least the following legal theories that this state may pursue to attempt to gain ownership or control of the public lands within this state:

1. The equal sovereignty principle, which recognizes that for a federal republic such as the United States to function, each member of the republic must be equal in sovereign power.

2. The equal footing doctrine, which recognizes that each state must be admitted to the United States on an equal footing with the original thirteen states.

3. The compact theory, which recognizes that a compact was formed between this state and the federal government under which this state agreed to allow the federal government to retain land within its borders and the federal government agreed to promptly and completely dispose of that land by sale or grant.

4. The property clause, which recognizes that the framers of the United States Constitution intended to grant the power to regulate federal lands only in the context of disposal, not to permanently retain the majority of the land within a state.

B. On or before October 1, 2018, the attorney general shall submit a report of the attorney general's analysis pursuant to subsection A of this section to the president of the senate and the speaker of the house of representatives.

C. On or after November 1, 2018, and after consulting with the president of the senate and the speaker of the house of representatives, the attorney general may commence an action to attempt to gain ownership or control of the public lands within this state.

D. This section is repealed from and after September 30, 2026.

 

[Gr8bawana]

OMG! Here we go again.

 

[rideold]

You know with the constant pressure on our lands I'm beginning to wonder if we should be getting efforts going to ensure access to any land transferred from federal to state control.....just in case. Even though we all know state control will be a disaster maintaining access would keep it prominent in people's lives.

 

[Gr8bawana]

You know with the constant pressure on our lands I'm beginning to wonder if we should be getting efforts going to ensure access to any land transferred from federal to state control.....just in case. Even though we all know state control will be a disaster maintaining access would keep it prominent in people's lives.

This would be a mistake. It would send a signal that we would be ok with PLT if we could keep some of our access. We can't allow PLT to happen at all. There wouldn't be anything left to have acess to after the states sell the land off to cover budget shortfalls. My own state of NV is a prime example of selling of almost all state controlled land.

 

[elkduds]

I wonder how many Americans will support the idea of AZ taking the Grand Canyon away from them?

 

[LopeHunter]

I wonder how many Americans will support the idea of AZ taking the Grand Canyon away from them?

And Native Americans have land there.

 

[rideold]

This would be a mistake. It would send a signal that we would be ok with PLT if we could keep some of our access. We can't allow PLT to happen at all. There wouldn't be anything left to have acess to after the states sell the land off to cover budget shortfalls. My own state of NV is a prime example of selling of almost all state controlled land.

Crud. Hadn't thought of that.

 

[scubohuntr]

Arizona has already sold off the majority of their state lands. What's left are the parcels without access to water, and those too far from Phoenix/Flagstaff/Tucson to be valuable for subdivisions.

 

[Gr8bawana]

Arizona has already sold off the majority of their state lands. What's left are the parcels without access to water, and those too far from Phoenix/Flagstaff/Tucson to be valuable for subdivisions.

I believe they are talking about OUR public lands and not state land.

 

[scubohuntr]

Exactly. They've sold the state lands they have, now they want more. They won't go after the Grand Canyon or any high-profile areas yet; not until they have the precedent well and truly set. For now it'll be just some miscellaneous bits of neglected DoD land and miscellaneous parcels, followed by innocuous legislation introduced by the Arizona senators and representatives, purely "to make the process more efficient". By the time anyone notices, they'll have the pipeline built and greased, and nothing anyone can do about it.

The number one thing protecting our public lands- bar none- is the incredible inertia of the Federal government. Any time you try to change ownership or use of Federal land, you need stakeholder meetings, Environmental Impact Statements, feasibility studies, Congressional approval, and a list of paperwork as long as your leg. Each step of the way will be appealed and objected to.

States can dispense with a lot of that, which is the REAL reason the PLT folks want federal lands transferred to state ownership. Grease the palms of a couple dozen good-ol'-boy state legislators, and suddenly the state is happy to sell off whatever you want to buy, or trade an old landfill or Superfund site for. Even if they don't actually sell it, it's much easier to change uses on state land. Make a donation to the right congresscritter's favorite cause, and all that state forest magically becomes "multiple use", with dirt cheap logging, mining, and drilling leases available.

 

[cfree]

Almost all transfers/sales of public land to private entities are bad. However I think AZ has done pretty good in keeping 9.2 million of the 10.9 million acres granted it 100 years ago. Not sure they've sold all the state lands they have...yet.

 

[CampRipleyLF]

this assault on our public lands will not quit until it is smothered into the ground.

 

[rammac]

Arizona has already sold off the majority of their state lands. What's left are the parcels without access to water, and those too far from Phoenix/Flagstaff/Tucson to be valuable for subdivisions.

The federal government apportioned Arizona 10,900,000 acres in 1929 and they still retain 9,260,253 acres as of the last audit in 2008...as of that year, the state still retained 85% of the land that was granted to them (https://land.az.gov/about/history).

Do your own research and quit being lazy and simply repeating the garbage that the progressive left keeps pushing on you.

 

[appaloosa]

The federal government apportioned Arizona 10,900,000 acres in 1929 and they still retain 9,260,253 acres as of the last audit in 2008...as of that year, the state still retained 85% of the land that was granted to them (https://land.az.gov/about/history).

Do your own research and quit being lazy and simply repeating the garbage that the progressive left keeps pushing on you.

That's still 1.6 million acres you no longer have access to!!

Sincerely, progressive leftist

 

[Straight Arrow]

.... as of the last audit in 2008...as of that year, the state still retained 85% of the land that was granted to them

And then after selling another few chunks to folks with political strings and purse strings such as those of the Wilks, it will be 60% retained ... but perhaps a couple of Arizona state budgets will be balanced ... and the elk will be on the chunks sold, perhaps accessible for a paltry few grand. If you really think that scenario is merely progressive "garbage" and could never happen, then your research is lacking with respect to the larger western public lands PLT issue.

 

[PaulRevere]

The federal government apportioned Arizona 10,900,000 acres in 1929 and they still retain 9,260,253 acres as of the last audit in 2008...as of that year, the state still retained 85% of the land that was granted to them (https://land.az.gov/about/history).

Do your own research and quit being lazy and simply repeating the garbage that the progressive left keeps pushing on you.

Maybe you shouldn't be so lazy and passive when it comes to the facts, which you laid out so nicely for us.

 

[scubohuntr]

The federal government apportioned Arizona 10,900,000 acres in 1929 and they still retain 9,260,253 acres as of the last audit in 2008...as of that year, the state still retained 85% of the land that was granted to them (https://land.az.gov/about/history).

Do your own research and quit being lazy and simply repeating the garbage that the progressive left keeps pushing on you.

From the link you posted:

"Today the Land Department’s urban lands lease and sale program is the largest revenue producer for the Trust.

Nearly all of the most valuable urban Trust lands around the northern border of the Phoenix metropolitan area and north and west Tucson are Common Schools Trust lands. The large block of Trust lands on the south and southeast sides of the Tucson metropolitan area is divided amongst the various institutional Trusts. The University of Arizona Trust owns a large amount of timbered land acreage in the Flagstaff area and agricultural lands near Yuma. However, the majority of the acreage in the other individual institutional Trusts are rural grazing lands, although some agricultural potential exists.

In the 88 years since statehood, the State has disposed of, or exchanged, about 1,628,079 acres of Trust lands. A total of 9,228,787 acres of Trust Land remains. Almost all of the lands are under one or more leases for natural resource uses and commercial development purposes".​

As I believe I mentioned, the state doesn't need to sell "public" land to make it effectively private. In many states, School Trust lands are open to public access unless being actively grazed. "In Arizona Attorney General’s Opinion #74-13 of August 1, 1974, Attorney General N. Warner Lee sets forth that “No one may enter upon State Trust Land without a permit.”" (quote from https://land.az.gov/natural-resources/trespass-program). Sure, there is language exempting hunters and fishermen "actively pursuing game or fish, in season" from that (so no scouting), but there is also the statement: "Lands leased for agriculture, mining, commercial, or military purposes are not open to recreational use". So of that 9,260,253 acres of "public" land not yet sold, how much is actually accessible? Certainly none of the "almost all" that have active leases. I don't know for sure, as I no longer live in Arizona and apparently I'm too lazy to research it. I'll ask the progressive left at the next meeting.

 

[LaSportsman]

I hunted State land for javelina this year and the land was also leased for grazing. State land isn't public land. It was given to the states to produce revenue. Leasing for minerals and grazing can be compatible with hunting and other activities. The state sells a use permit for around $15 or if hunting or fishing, the license is the permit.

Now, selling the land is completely different. I wrote a congressman last year about public land in AZ (BLM, etc) and the response was basically that I didn't understand that AZ was mostly public land and that AZ was harmed by not getting tax revenue. My response was that public land costs AZ nothing in public health care, maintenance of infrastructure, etc. Essentially, AZ is larger than it would be otherwise.

There is a legitimate beef where federal land is prime property such a military base that does cost a state property taxes and have residents who use the infrastructure, such as military housing. That is not the case in AZ compared to Camp Pendleton or Camp Lejeune occupying property tha is otherwise worth millions.

I'll see if I can find the email.

 

[Falcon75]

My response was that public land costs AZ nothing in public health care, maintenance of infrastructure, etc. Essentially, AZ is larger than it would be otherwise.

There is a legitimate beef where federal land is prime property such a military base that does cost a state property taxes and have residents who use the infrastructure, such as military housing. That is not the case in AZ compared to Camp Pendleton or Camp Lejeune occupying property tha is otherwise worth millions.[/QUOTE]

See what happens if they close or move a base for the areas economy and tax base. I agree we need to fight this and cant lose an acre for the precedent that will set.

 

[LaSportsman]

SoCal would keep clicking without Pendleton, even if it is a major economic power. A small town like Yuma would be hurt much more. AZ isn't losing that much in tax revenue for MCAS Yuma.

Btw, I wasn't arguing for selling public land, just that most AZ state land is accessible. A hunting or fishing license is a permit for those purposes. $25/yr buys a permit for other uses. This revenue helps the state and helps us maintain access to those lands.