Idaho following in Utah's steps

[smarandr]

Doesn't this just make you proud to be an Idahoan? Once again ideology trumps common sense.

"On the floor of the Senate this morning, House Concurrent Resolution 21 (transfer study committee) and House Concurrent Resolution 22 (federal lands transfer) were both passed.

Senator Siddoway (Terreton) carried HCR 21 and explained that it would form a committee to study the implications of the federal government ceding public lands back to the state of Idaho. The committee would meet over the summer.

Senator Werk (Boise) debated against the bill, arguing that the legislature already had a study committee in 1980 and nothing had changed since then. He does not feel taxpayer money should be spent to study the issue again.

After a roll call vote, HCR 21 passed 26-6.

The debate for HCR 22, which demands the federal government transfer public lands to the state of Idaho, was longer. Senator Siddoway once again carried the resolution and explained that 34 million acres are owned by the federal government in Idaho. Of that 34 million, approximately 9.5 million acres are owned by the Bureau of Land Management and 6.9 million acres are owned by the U.S. Forest Service. Under HCR 22, only those 16.4 million acres would be considered for transfer. Wilderness lands, national defense lands, the Idaho National Laboratory lands, and Bureau of Reclamation lands would not be considered for transfer. He feels that so long as policy decisions are left with remote individuals in Washington D.C., lands policy will continue to be formed by political winds.

Senator Hagedorn (Meridian) debated in favor of the resolution, saying that the lands transfer will allow dormant substations at closed mills to use biomass from federal lands to generate electricity. Such a move would create jobs and economically revitalize those areas, allowing them to become manufacturer economies again.

Senator Tippets (Montpelier) debated against the resolution, saying he is cautious by nature and feels the study committee formed by HCR 21– which he supported– is appropriate. He would like more information on the matter. While he hopes the section in the resolution calling on the federal government to work with the state will come to pass, he feels the language that precedes that request makes it less likely.

Senator Stennett (Ketchum) also debated against the resolution and cited the 1980 study. She argued that the federal government is responsible for investigating and prosecuting crimes that occur on federal lands, which the state would also have to absorb. She feels the associated costs would be enormous.

Senator Rice (Caldwell) debated in support of the resolution. He argued that HCR 22 was a petition for the federal government to do what was expected when Idaho became a state. That the federal government later unilaterally changed those terms treats Idaho like a second class state. He also argued that diseased forests do not support wildlife as well as healthy forests and the state of Idaho has shown a greater ability to manage land than the federal government. Senator Nuxoll (Cottonwood) also spoke in support of the resolution.

Senator Durst (Boise) debated against the resolution, saying that it would be as ineffectual as a can thrown in a recycling bin. He feels that the proper process is for our Congressional delegation to communicate the state’s wishes and if the delegation is ineffective, then they should be replaced. He related a story of an experience he had crossing federal lands and running into a fence on private property. He believes the resolution would result in a patchwork of private property and public land and he would rather be able to go anywhere he wants on federal land.

Senator Johnson (Lewiston) also debated against the resolution and mentioned his involvement with the federal lands task force in the late 1990s. Senator Lacey (Pocatello) spoke in opposition to the resolution, as well, and said the findings of the study group formed by HCR 21 were needed first.

Senator Lakey (Nampa) supported the resolution, saying he would feel HCR 22 was premature only if he felt a federal response were imminent. He doubts the federal government will begin drafting deeds to transfer, though, and believes this makes a good initial statement.

Senator Schmidt (Moscow) debated against the resolution, saying the language indicates to him an intent to move public land into private ownership. Senator Davis (Idaho Falls) also said he would be voting against the resolution, as there were errors in the recitals (the “WHEREAS” statements of fact contained in the resolution) that the resolution itself then draws upon. He would prefer to give the study committee time to do its work before voting in favor of the measure.

Following a roll call vote, HCR 22 passed 21-13. Concurrent Resolutions do not require the signature of the governor. Once they have passed both chambers of the legislature, as HCR 21 and HCR 22 now have, they go into effect."

 

[Topgun 30-06]

How in the heck is Idaho set up where anything passed in one or both of the chambers can be in effect without the signature of the Governor?

 

[smarandr]

Because they are resolutions, not bills that become laws. My understanding is that the legislature is resolving to waste the taxpayers money to pursue a study (HCR21) about how to wrest ownership of federal ground to the hands of the state, and also resolves to demand the federal government cede ownership (HCR22) of certain federal lands to the state.

Other than us being a laughingstock and wasting a lot of taxpayer money I really don't think the resolutions mean all that much.

 

[ID_deerslayer]

this is rediculous! Not excited to see this go through, since when does state government have authority to overtake federal lands and the ability to essentially do what they please with it?

 

[Dave N]

Other than us being a laughingstock and wasting a lot of taxpayer money I really don't think the resolutions mean all that much.

Don't feel bad, Illinois STILL has you beat!

 

[1_pointer]

Time to steal "the stick" out of Boise and move it to a new city to res-establish the state capitol.