Utah Citizens, Others Reject Initiatives to
Expand State and Federal Lands
Utah Nature Conservancy fails to
gather enough signatures to force ballot initiativeWritten By: James M.
Taylor
Published In:
Environment NewsPublication Date: September
1, 2004
Publisher: The Heartland Institute
A proposed initiative that would force the State of Utah to spend $150
million to purchase an unspecified amount of land from private citizens and
remove it from individual use was thwarted on July 6 when supporters failed to
gather enough signatures to put it on the November ballot. The defeat mirrored
a wave of recent land-acquisition defeats at both the federal and state
levels.
Initiative Followed Legislative Failure
The Utah Nature Conservancy began the initiative earlier this year
after the Utah legislature rejected a bill sponsored by State Representative
Ralph Becker (D-Salt Lake) that would have required the state to purchase
privately held lands and remove them from the domain of private citizens.
To place the initiative on the November ballot, the Nature Conservancy
was required by law to gather the signatures of at least 10 percent of all
registered voters in 26 of the state's 29 counties. Utah enacted the 26-county
requirement in 2003. "The legislative verbiage at the time was that they wanted
to make sure these petitions were done statewide, and not generated by local
interests," said Lisa Watts Baskin, an attorney who opposed the original Becker
legislation but favored the initiative and supports state purchases of private
land.
To meet the statewide signature requirement, the Nature Conservancy
employed paid petitioners, paying $3 for every signature they could gather. In
all, the Conservancy spent nearly $300,000 on signature bounties and other
expenses, according to a story in the July 7 Deseret Morning News.
"Because they were so well financed, I thought these folks might succeed," said
Baskin.
At the July 6 deadline to submit the necessary signatures, however,
the Nature Conservancy had met its quota in only 24 of the state's 29 counties.
"We have declared it insufficient," said state elections chief Amy
Naccarato.
Having been rebuffed both in the legislature and in the citizen
initiative process, the Nature Conservancy vowed to fight the initiative
decision in the courts. "We feel like this is a bump in the road and we'll
still be on the ballot in November," said Amanda Smith, president of Utahns for
Clean Water, Clean Air, and Quality Growth. "What we're talking about is 200 to
300 signatures in two Senate districts. That's a pretty small number. We're
confident we'll prevail."
Citizen Revolt Stalls California Land Acquisition
The Utah defeat was one of several recent setbacks for forces seeking
more acquisition of currently private land by federal, state, and local
governments.
In San Mateo County, California, more than 5,000 local
citizens--almost one-third of the area's registered voters--signed a petition
this year opposing plans by the region's Midpeninsula Regional Open Space
District to annex 140,000 acres of coastal land. According to the July 13
San Jose Mercury News, citizens signing the petition expressed concern
that the district would seize land from unwilling sellers, drain tax revenues
by removing land from tax-paying citizens, and inhibit farmers from cultivating
their land.
Unless supporters of the proposed land acquisition invalidate more
than 1,000 of the 5,000 signatures, the petition will prevent the district from
annexing the coastal land.
Michigan Legislature Considers Selling State Lands
In Michigan, state legislators are considering selling off some of the
state's lands. Burdened by the costs of maintaining state lands and seeing a
potential cash windfall in selling lands to private citizens eager to care for
them, Michigan State Representative Jack Hoogendyk (R-Kalamazoo) has introduced
legislation to sell the State Fairgrounds in Detroit.
"The fairgrounds are a valuable asset," said Hoogendyk in support of
his bill. "We should utilize the potential of this land and sell it, generating
revenue, not costing the taxpayers revenue."
The sale of the 200-acre fairgrounds, which represents only a small
fraction of Michigan's state-owned lands, would generate approximately $57
million in revenue. The state currently loses $2 million per year maintaining
the site.
The Hoogendyk bill follows legislation that would allow the sale of
some of the state's municipal forest lands. The forest land sale, which the
Michigan House approved by a wide margin in May 2004 and is awaiting action in
the state Senate Appropriations Committee, would generate $50 million in
revenue. "Supporters estimate as much as 16,000 acres might be sold in the
first year at an average of $3,000 an acre. That would bring in nearly $50
million," reported Edward Hoogterp of Booth Newspapers on May 24.
Revenues from the sale of the forest lands would be split between the
state and local governments, which would in turn fund educational programs,
forest projects, fire prevention projects, and other environmental
initiatives.
"I guess if the state would allow us to consider selling [school-owned
forest lands] and keeping half the proceeds, it would be worth thinking about,"
said East Grand Rapids Public Schools Superintendent James Morse.
"I don't think of it as a revenue bill at all," said State
Representative Mike Pumford (R-Newaygo). "It's an opportunity to get rid of
outholdings and get them back on the tax rolls. ... This will provide tax base
for local communities, and provide economic development."
Federal Action Mirrors State Misgivings
The state-level trend to reject further expansion of government-owned
lands and in some cases roll it back is being mirrored at the federal level.
The U.S. Senate refused in both 2000 and 2001 to enact the Conservation and
Reinvestment Act, which would have required the federal government to purchase
billions of dollars' worth of land each year and remove the lands from private
stewardship. Activist groups have pushed various reincarnations of CARA during
the 2004 congressional session, but all such efforts have failed.
The Get Outdoors Act of 2004, which connected American obesity rates
to a failure of the federal government to turn more land into national parks
and other such properties, fizzled in Congress this spring. Cosponsor
Representative Don Young (R-Alaska) watched in frustration as his Alaska State
Republican Party explicitly repudiated his bill, which they contended would
destroy the economic lifeline of Alaska communities, according to the May 26
Fairbanks Daily News-Miner.
In addition, federal lawmakers have targeted for removal all 2005
federal appropriations earmarked for new land acquisition programs. On June 3,
the House Interior Appropriations Subcommittee stunned land-acquisition
advocates by cutting all funds designated for new land-purchasing programs.
Although the subcommittee approved $50 million that already had been committed
for existing land acquisition programs and $91 million for Park Service grants
to individual states, the lawmakers categorically rejected the Bush
administration's request for more than $225 million in 2005 for new land
acquisition projects.
"The federal government owns a third of this nation's land," said Matt
Streit, spokesman for the House Resources Committee. "Seeing that the
government can't properly manage what it already has, it seems prudent,
especially in a time when the federal purse strings are tight, to restrict more
land acquisitions."
James M. Taylor (taylor@heartland.org) is managing editor of
Environment and Climate News.