Home > Legislative Tracker > state trust land reform

State Trust Lands:
state trust land reform

Our Position: oppose
Bill Number: HCR2045
Sponsor: Nelson, Boone, Brown, et al
Legislative Session: 2006 Legislative Session

Status

Look for this on the ballot in November and plan to vote no on it.

Action Needed

Contact

Background

Can Arizona Protect Its State Trust Lands?

Arizona is at an important crossroads relative to growth and protection of our wild lands and wildlife.  As one of the fastest growing states in the country and with cities and towns that are addicted to sprawling development, lands on the urban fringe, including state trust lands, are under increasing development pressure.  Beyond the urban fringe, state trust lands are mostly grazed by livestock and many are in poor condition.  Approximately 8.4 million acres are still under grazing leases.

So what are state trust lands?

Arizona retains over 9.2 million acres of state trust land, the remainder of the more than 10 million acres originally given to the state by the United States government upon statehood.  State trust lands are held in permanent trust, with children in our public school system as the primary beneficiary.  Per the Arizona Constitution, the trust lands must be managed to produce economic benefit for the beneficiaries. 

Revenues from state trust lands go into both a permanent and an expendable fund.  The expendable fund consists of lease revenues, penalties and sales interest, and investment income generated by the permanent fund.  The expendable fund revenues are then divided among the beneficiaries and distributed. 

Despite that mandate, Arizona’s grazing fees are among some of the lowest in the West and until recently there was little competition for these leases.  In response to an important 2001 Arizona Supreme Court decision, the State Land Department awarded the first grazing lease to a conservation lessee (Forest Guardians), so it could work on restoring the land.  The decision said, "...restoration and preservation are already and must continue to be considered legitimate uses for land that, according to the Commissioner's classification, has no higher and better use than grazing.  Otherwise, grazing lessees could continue to graze stock until the land is damaged and its value destroyed."  This decision represents important recognition of conservation by the courts.  Forest Guardians paid more than double the amount offered originally by the existing rancher lessee.  This represents a shift that could in time both increase revenues and lessen the degradation of the land. 

State trust lands currently provide a very small percentage of the annual funding for public education.  However, it is a dedicated source of revenues and therefore important.  Any dollars that are generated above $72 million go directly to the Classroom Site Fund, which helps with teacher salaries.

What have we done to reform state trust land management?

Conservation advocates have been working to conserve state trust lands for more than a decade.  In the mid 1990’s, they sponsored educational conferences and worked with the legislature and former Governor Symington on the Arizona Preserve Initiative (API).  The API allows for limited conservation of urban state trust lands, but it has recently come under fire and been questioned on constitutional grounds, so its future is uncertain.

In the late 1990’s conservation interests worked at the Legislature to win passage of a proposal that would provide funding for state trust land protection.  That, like many legislative measures, contained some poison pill language relative to growth management, so the Sierra Club opposed it.  The Legislature referred the measure and it was approved by voters.  In 2000, the Legislature came back with another referral which identified specific lands (primarily mountain tops and washes) for conservation, but capped the amount at 3%.  Conservation groups were near unanimous in their opposition to it and the voters rejected it. 

In 2001, conservation interests and later a larger group of stakeholders began working to develop a comprehensive state trust land reform measure.  The measure started out as a proposal to conserve land while protecting the trust.  It soon became a “Christmas tree” proposal that was very complicated and included significant giveaways to developers and ranchers.  Land exchanges, automatic renewal of grazing leases, and other giveaways were included in the package.  The Sierra Club and many other conservation interests as well as legislators had major concerns with the package and it did not move forward in the 2004 session.

What is the status of state trust land reform?

This past legislative session, a modified version of that proposal was sent to the legislature, but the legislature failed to come to agreement on it.  Subsequent to this second failed attempt at the legislature, some of the proponents of the 2004 package finally began to look at an initiative for the 2006 ballot.  That initiative was filed in mid July and is a scaled back version of the previous proposal.  It includes:

• 332,757 acres of land for conservation (permanent reserve and educational reserve lands)  with the potential for conserving an additional 360,999 acres (provisional reserve lands);
• a board of trustees for oversight of land issues with most trustees having an education background;
• funding for the land department which comes from trust land revenues;
• participation agreements for the developers (means they can get title to the land prior to paying for it and the land department gets a percentage of lot sales);
• provisions to convey rights-of way without auction and for non-monetary consideration; and
• a requirement that the state land department prepare state trust land plans in conjunction with cities, towns, and counties. 

It does not include grazing lease provisions, except that permanent reserve conservation lands with grazing leases cannot be conveyed to cities, towns, counties or other qualified parties.  Educational reserve lands can be conveyed to the universities.  Permanent reserve lands can be conveyed to government entities, but only if they are not currently under grazing leases.  Provisional lands can be conveyed to cities, towns, counties or non-profits, but only if the true value of the land is paid to the land department.  All conveyances of land require approval of the board of trustees.

Conservation is defined in the measure and “means preserving the natural, cultural, or historical assets of land, such as open space, scenic beauty, geology, archaeology, protected plants, wildlife, and ecological values.”  Conservation lands (except those conveyed to the federal government) are restricted against development.  Development precludes construction of buildings, but does not preclude the construction of roads, canals, power transmission lines, cell phone towers, fencing, trails, etc.

The Sierra Club strongly supports conservation of state trust lands.  We are neutral on this proposed initiative, however.  There are some important lands protected in this package, but we are concerned about the provisions that will expedite development of state trust lands and about the more than 8 million acres of state trust lands that are not protected or otherwise addressed in this initiative.  Putting a definition of development in the constitution which allows for the construction of roads, canals, cell phone towers, power lines, and more, is also troubling.  Finally, it is unclear how much of the 360,999 provisional reserve lands will actually be protected as it is unlikely that some communities will be able to fund their acquisition.

HCR2045 state trust land reform (Nelson, Boone, Brown, et al) is a legislative measure to counter the Conserving Arizona’s Future Initiative.  While we are not supporting the initiative, we find many problems with this referendum and do not think it is appropriate for the Legislature to try and confuse voters in order to defeat the other measure.  HCR2045 will protect very little land and does not even adequately protect the lands identified for conservation as it keeps them totally open to mining activities.  Conservation lands are restricted against development, but development only precludes construction of buildings, it does not preclude the construction of roads, canals, power transmission lines, cell phone towers, fencing, trails, etc. It requires that any additional lands not already identified under the Arizona Preserve Initiative, be approved by laws and it even caps that at 400,000 acres.  It gives away pre-1968 rights-of-way for roads.  OPPOSE.

State trust land reform and any other land use reform is a difficult prospect in Arizona.  Conservationists must continue to work for protection of these important lands, but must do so without risking even more of the land.

For more information, please contact the Sierra Club at (602) 253-8633 or at grand.canyon.chapter@sierraclub.org