'New rebels' seek control of federal land

A growing movement to transfer federal land to state control in Western states, where the federal government is a big landowner, is drawing comparisons to the Sagebrush Rebellion of the 1970s, and running into strong resistance from conservation and sportsmen groups.

At issue is who should control some 300 million acres managed by the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management in the West.

Utah state Rep. Ken Ivory, who sponsored a land transfer bill that passed in that state, says federal land is in poor health, threatened by catastrophic wildfires and bugs, and not meeting its potential for generating revenue from timber, oil and other natural resources that could help Western economies.

Frustration has sparked renewed interest in state control, Ivory said.

"The discussion is intensifying in all of the Western states and beyond quite frankly," Ivory said.

Jessica Goad, advocacy director for the Denver-based Center for Western Priorities, a conservation organization tracking the issue, said more than 40 transfer-related bills have been introduced in state legislatures in the West this year.

Three have passed.

Goad said a strong majority of Montanans oppose transferring American public land to state control because it would be too expensive and unconstitutional. The movement for state takeover of federal land, she contends, is rooted in a fringe ideology.

"But certain proponents continue to push this idea, and they succeeded in getting it into the mainstream conversation," she said.

Sen. Jennifer Fielder, R-Thompson Falls, who pushed for a study of land transfer at the 2015 Montana Legislature, says concern for the health of the land and her community prompted her to get involved.

The movement has taken hold as people realize better decisions are made by people closest to the subject matter, Fielder said.

"The other reason is we're experiencing such economic and environmental devastation as the result of very bad federal policies," Fielder said.

The current movement for state control has similarities to the Sage Brush Rebellion of the 1970s, in which Westerners sought more local control of federal land within their borders, said Martin Nie, a professor of natural resource policy at the University of Montana's College of Forestry and Conservation in Missoula.

He calls its supporters the "new rebels."

"I have felt from the very beginning this is something that should be taken seriously, and I continue to believe that," Nie, who is director of the university's Bolle Center for People and Forests, said of the current efforts for more local control of public land. "Especially when you consider some of the efforts going on in D.C. simultaneously."

Nie sees a national interest in federal land ownership, including protecting watersheds and fish and wildlife, and he opposes any transfers.

Resistance also is coming from conservation groups and hunting and angling organizations worried land used for recreation will be opened to development and possibly sold.

This spring, those groups arranged rallies at state capitals in Helena, Denver and Boise and also traveled to Washington, D.C. to lobby Congress.

Nie believes a transfer to state control would be a prelude to privatizing the land, or selling them, though proponents of the idea say that won't happen. To appease transfer opponents, Fielder pointed out, she introduced a bill during the Montana legislative session that would have prohibited the sale of any public land. It failed.

During the Sagebrush Rebellion, Nie said, discussion occurred about auctioning federal land to the highest bidder, or selling the land to local interest such as ranchers with federal grazing leases. And some states that received land grants from the federal government upon their entry into the union later sold them.

That's what has him concerned.

In Utah, where the Legislature approved a bill calling for the United States to turn over 30 million acres of federal land in 2012, the Legislature approved additional funding for the effort including the hiring of legal counsel to work on a litigation strategy.

States that approve laws calling for transfers will have to follow up with legal action if the federal government doesn't comply.

Funding also was approved to hire a public relations firm.

The 2015 Arizona Legislature passed a transfer study bill, and it was signed by governor, Ivory said.

And Wyoming extended and funded a previously approved study commission that's looking into state management.

In Montana, the Republican-controlled House and Senate passed a measure to study federal land in the state. It now awaits approval or veto by Gov. Steve Bullock, a Democrat. A bill to study a land transfer did not make it out of committee, which led to an amended bill calling for the study of federal land.

Bills are pending in a handful of other states, Goad said.

Efforts for more state control also are occurring at the national level.

In March, a land-transfer related budget amendment by U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, was approved with support from 51 senators, including U.S. Rep. Steve Daines, R-Mont.

"For anybody who doesn't take it seriously, having 51 senators vote in favor should wake up anybody who recreates on public land," said Land Tawney, executive director of Backcountry Hunters and Anglers in Missoula, which has members in each of the 50 states.

Congress is the only legislative body that has the actual authority to approve giving up the federal land, he said.

"Where the actual rubber meets the road is in D.C.," Tawney said.

Thanks to the foresight of early conservation proponents such as President Theodore Roosevelt, the average person today has access to federal public land, which separates the United States from the rest of the world, Tawney says.

"What's great about public land is it makes everybody have a big backyard," Tawney said.

Robert Dillon, communications director for the U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, called how critics are characterizing the Murkowski amendment "scare mongering." Murkowski is chairwoman of the committee.

"No one is saying Congress is going to sell off our national treasurers," Dillon said.

The budget amendment relates to "initiatives to sell or transfer to, or exchange with, a state or local government any federal land" that isn't in a national park, preserve, monument.

Dillon says it won't actually sell, transfer or exchange any land, he said.

Subsequent legislation would be required, and approval by a majority in the House, Senate and president.

The amendment would establish a place in the budget for the types of small-scale, locally driven exchanges, sales or transfers with state or local government that are often used to craft balanced, comprehensive land polices, he said.

Conservation groups criticized Montana's Daines for his vote in support of the amendment.

Alee Lockman, a Daines spokeswoman, said Daines is opposed to transferring federal public land to state ownership, and wouldn't support any measure that would result in their sale.

The Senate and House will put together a conference committee to hash out differences between the two budget proposals, Dillon said.

Tawney, of the Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, says the Murkowski amendment, while nonbinding, remains a concern. He views it as a trial balloon floated to see how much support it would receive, and it passed.

"If we don't pay attention, this is the kind of stuff that takes hold," he said.

Ivory, the Utah lawmaker, is executive director of the American Land Council, a not-for-profit in Utah that is promoting state management of federal land across the West.

The group, formed in 2012, says its mission is to secure local control of Western public land by transferring federal public land. The group says it is leading the charge "by giving leaders the knowledge and courage to battle for the only solution big enough to ensure better access, better health and better productivity through the transfer of public lands to local stewardship."

"There are motivated people all over," Ivory said. "We simply plant seeds and watch things grow."

One of the seeds was planted in Montana, where 29 percent, or 27.4 million acres of the land, is federally managed. The U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management managed 25 million acres.

Fielder pushed efforts to study land transfer at the 2015 Montana Legislature.

She cited the Federal Lands Policy Act of 1976 as a source of frustration. That law said federal land need to be managed for sustained yield and multiple use with local input, with a portion of the revenue generated returned to local governments in the form of payment in lieu of taxes, she said.

In each category, federal management has fallen short, she said.

The Federal Land Policy Management Act of 1976 was one reason for the Sage Brush Rebellion in the 1970s, according to Nie, the UM professor. "This is another flare up," he says.

In passing the act, Nie said, Congress declared that public land in the West would be retained. Up until that time, there had been question about what would happen to more than 200 million acres of arid land in the West. Some had hoped the federal government would relinquish the land, which the BLM now manages.

Opponents of the act dubbed it "The Great Terrain Robbery."

Roughly 28 percent of the United States is federal land, and most of it is located in the Western states.

Today's movement for more state control is partly the result of some interests wanting to utilize more resources on federal land, especially oil and gas, without as much permitting and analysis as is required by federal law, Nie said.

Ideology is factor as well, he said.

But the movement goes beyond ideology, he said.

There are multiple sources of frustration with federal land management, he said. One is a deeply problematic and fire-dominated U.S. Forest Service budget, he said. Others are frustrated with the agency's planning and restoration policies, he said.

Nie views the "sagebrush-like laws and resolutions" as another manifestation of hyper political polarization in the country.

"My frustration is we all recognize the big conservation issues right now," Nie said. "They all cross federal-state jurisdiction. It requires cooperation among the feds and states."

More state and federal cooperation is needed to address pressing issues pertaining to fire, management of water, fish and wildlife and the recovery of endangered species, said Nie, who views efforts to transfer land as a distraction.

Montana Sen. Brad Hamlett, D-Cascade, who served on a committee that studied federal land management in Montana following the 2013 Legislature, said transferring public land is going nowhere.

He advocates more cooperation between local and state governments with federal agencies on restoration and access projects.

"It's obvious to me we need to get the different governing entities to talk each other, and not be hung up on absolute control," Hamlett said.

"It got polarized," Hamlett added of public land discussions. "It's either, 'We're going to sell off the Rocky Mountains, or, 'We're never going to cut another tree in the forest.' When it gets polarized, it's hard to have a discussion that solves anything."