Conservation

Public Lands Home

National Monuments

Land Exchanges

Colorado River Management Plan

Sprawl

Forest Management

Grazing

Wilderness

Land Exchanges: Trading Conservation

By Don Steuter, Conservation Chair, Palo Verde Group

When is the last time you heard of a land exchange that genuinely served the interests of conservation? Conservation was not the rational behind a proposed swap when ASARCO Mining Company tried to acquire almost 11,000 acres of federal land south of Superior. That exchange would have ruined a popular scenic area adjacent to the White Canyon Wilderness, getting in return a far lesser amount of seldom visited land in Mohave County.

A net gain for conservation would not have occurred when an exchange was originally envisioned to preserve Spur Cross Ranch north of Carefree. First proposed as a smaller land swap, the exchange grew until perhaps two hundred thousand acres of Forest Service land would have been turned over to the State Land Department. Charged with its mission to maximize revenue from its lands to ostensibly help fund public schools, the Land Department undoubtedly would have sold off some of its acquired lands to developers. Conservation was not served when the Saguaro National Park Land Exchangetraded away 4,300 acres of federal land north of Phoenix with the public receiving only 600 acres in return. An honest attempt to preserve land threatened with development near Tucson resulted in a major loss of public land that is now master-planned for resorts and expensive houses.

Problems with Land Exchanges

Since land exchanges always have a downside when conservation is concerned, they should be used only as a last resort. Rather than trying to preserve environmentally sensitive state lands by trading with the federal government, officials should amend our state Constitution and the Federal Enabling Act to allow simple set-asides of ecologically important land. Several organizations have been working hard the past few years to put an initiative on the ballot to make this happen, but the effort needs more supporters. If the Federal government wishes to acquire private property, officials should fully fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund program and purchase these assets rather than resorting to more land exchanges.

Using the public process will allowed us in the National Environmental Policy Act so we can allmake more informed decisions. The practice of circumventing public involvement by introducing bills in Congress to consummate exchanges puts development interests in the driver’s seat and poorly serves conservation.

Keep land exchanges small and local if they need to be done at all. Large swaps, such as the Spur Cross exchange, can be impossible for any individual or organization to assess and monitor.

Arizonans need to be realistic about the role state lands play in funding public education in Arizona. Historically, revenues from State lands have provided only about two percent of the total required funding. That two percent for the most part has never really gone to schools, but instead into the general fund, the money in effect slightly reducing our tax obligation for education. Even if all the revenues went directly to education, the question we all have to ask ourselves is this: Does more development of our State lands really serve the best long-term interests of our children? Open space, healthy wildlife populations, and places to recreate are equally important to future generations. If the outdated practice of maximizing revenues from state lands was changed to a custom emphasizing conservation, many of our land exchange problems would just go away.

Sierra Club, Grand Canyon Chapter, 202 E. McDowell Rd, Suite 277, Phoenix, AZ 85004, (602) 253-8633