Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to order the United States to begin transferring 9 million acres of Idaho public land to other owners and declare the current multiple use law as unconstitutional.
On behalf of the State of Idaho, Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador has submitted a “friend of the court” brief to the U.S. Supreme Court supporting Utah’s latest attempt to take millions of acres of public land out of the control of Congress and the political process, and instead have the Supreme Court designate other managers. The Attorney General is also asking the Supreme Court to declare the landmark law that directs the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to manage public lands for multiple use and sustained yield unconstitutional. In his brief, the Attorney General specifically called out for the transfer of 9 million acres of “unappropriated” BLM lands in Idaho:
“In Idaho, for example, roughly 80% of BLM lands (17% of all land in Idaho, more than 9 million acres) are not reserved for any designated purpose.” – Idaho Amicus Brief.
This claim is false. In 1976, Congress enacted the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) with overwhelming bipartisan support, which put into law the recommendations of a multi-year study by a bipartisan, congressionally-dominated (mostly by Westerners) blue-ribbon commission. FLPMA declared it national policy to retain BLM lands generally in national ownership and manage them for specifically defined public purposes under principles of multiple use and sustained yield.
Utah, with the support of the Idaho Attorney General, is asking the Supreme Court to declare FLPMA unconstitutional. It wants, in other words, to give a handful of unelected Justices in Washington, D.C. control of our public lands and override the political process.
All Idahoans should be concerned about this misguided effort, for these lands have tremendous value for our communities and quality of life. Think of it this way. If it appears mapped as “yellow” in the Idaho BLM recreation guide and it’s not already a National Conservation Area, a National Monument, Wilderness, or some other congressional designation, the Utah lawsuit considers it “unappropriated.” That would mean, Utah argues, that the Court, and not Congress, would determine the fate of these lands.
What happens next is anybody’s guess. Would the Court rule that these lands must be turned over to the states? Or to the private sector? Utah’s case, and the Idaho Attorney General’s brief, leave those important questions unanswered.
How might this attempted takeover affect you? Here is a list of just a few of the places that our Attorney General wants to put under the control of the Supreme Court.
The public boat ramps that provide access to Lake Coeur d’Alene like Blackwell Island, Killarney Lake and Mineral Ridge? Unappropriated.
Idaho’s famous Lower Salmon River? Unappropriated.
BLM lands in the Boise Foothills’ Ridge to River System? Unappropriated.
Bald Mountain Ski Area, Ketchum (40% BLM). Unappropriated.
South Fork of the Snake River, including the Conant and Byington boat ramps? Unappropriated.
St. Anthony Sand Dunes? Unappropriated.
The state of the State
If the Court ultimately ruled that these lands should be conveyed to the state of Idaho, one might be tempted to think that this is a good thing. After all, Idaho has a fantastic state park system. But Utah, supported by the Idaho Attorney General, is presenting the case for seizing these lands for the sole purpose of producing income; that is, economic development. This is what would be required under the Idaho Constitution. BLM lands, by contrast, are managed for multiple-use and sustained yield, which means the BLM must factor in public access, recreation, wildlife, clean water, cultural resources, and aesthetics. Under Idaho’s Constitution, there is no wiggle room to do that.
Idaho’s Constitution also requires the legislature to balance the budget. If the State were unable to pay the cost of, say, fighting fires on these newly acquired lands, which currently amounts to tens of millions of dollars (and half a billion dollars westwide), and is only going to increase with climate change, the State would be forced to sell these lands off to balance the budget. The State has sold off 1.2 million acres of its original 3.6 million acres, or 41% of state land, since being admitted to the union.
“Since Congress gave land to Idaho at statehood, the state has sold two of every five acres to timber companies, cattle ranchers, private fishing clubs and lakeside homeowners on Priest and Payette lakes,” says Rocky Barker of the Idaho Statesman.”
2016 Spokesman Review blog, “Idaho has history of selling off public lands”
If these lands are put up for sale, it is much more likely, as several examples in recent years have shown, that a well-connected party from out of state would purchase these lands rather than the local Idaho family who has been using that land for generations. Besides losing public access to these lands, private ownership would also fragment critical migratory habitat used by big game and degrade the sources of clean water for our communities. This makes you wonder who the Attorney General is truly representing here.
Do Idahoans really want to see their favorite trailhead blocked behind a “No Trespassing” sign or their favorite boat ramp signed, “Private Yacht Club”?
And while the focus of this latest takeover effort is on BLM land, you can be sure that a proposal to transfer “unappropriated” National Forest System lands won’t be far behind. But even if the State were to return to timber harvest levels of the ‘80s and ‘90s, they wouldn’t be able to keep up with the fire fighting costs and these lands would be sold off as well.
Idaho politicians like to rail against out-of-touch, unelected decision-makers from far-far away who make uninformed decisions that affect our quality of life. But in this case, our own Attorney General is asking the Supreme Court based in Washington, D.C. to decide on the future of Idaho’s public lands. All it will take is for five of the nine justices to agree and Idaho’s heritage and our way of life could be lost forever.
Idaho leaders (but apparently not Attorney General Labrador) used to know this:
“Let me tell you why people live in Idaho. They live in Idaho because they love their public lands.…Let me tell you what happens when you sell those public lands. … All of a sudden people can’t get to their favorite fishing hole or hunting grounds. … That’s a problem. That’s why we like our public lands.” – Rep. Mike Simpson in a 2016 hearing on the U.S. Forest Service budget.
“America’s public lands are an important resource that must be carefully managed and protected to meet multiple uses…Public land management does not work when Congress passes a top-down mandate.” – Senator Jim Risch, Public Lands statement
”We cannot take back something we never owned…We’re the ones who said, “Don’t give us the land.” – Attorney General Wasden, 2014.
“If the feds weren’t there to pay for it, you’d blow a huge hole in the budget.” – Governor Otter, 2017.
Governor Cecil Andrus famously referred to our fabulous public lands as our “second paycheck.”
Put simply, Idaho’s public lands — and the clean water flowing from them — are the foundation of Idaho’s unique way of life and Idaho’s economy.
What’s next?
Even if the Supreme Court denies Utah’s motion, Utah could choose to file the case in lower courts, and it could eventually end up back in the Supreme Court. So the risk is real and the issue isn’t going to go away.
What can you do?
We need to make sure that Idaho’s elected officials are looking to protect our way of life. The Idaho Attorney General should withdraw this amicus brief supporting a takeover and submit a revised one opposing the Utah suit. Contact your elected officials and urge them to keep Idaho’s lands in public lands.
This also means telling Congress to properly fund agencies like the BLM and Forest Service so they can take better care of our public lands and supporting collaborative solutions that help better manage these lands. Recent budget cuts aren’t going to help, and the BLM and Forest Service are going to need dedicated volunteers now more than ever.
But you can do even more than write letters. We need to show how passionately we care about our public lands so they are not taken away from us. Take an active role in the management of your public lands—the lands you own. Join one or more of your local conservation organizations (such as the Idaho Conservation League!) or increase your giving. Volunteer to maintain trails, pick up trash, plant sagebrush and bitterbrush, contact your local BLM or Forest Service office and comment on projects that affect the places you care about. Join one of the Forest Restoration Collaboratives across the state which advocate for healthy forests, FireWise communities, enhanced recreation, and improved habitat for fish and wildlife. Your public lands need you.
Public land management can be messy but it’s far better than the alternative.
Debates about the best use for particular parcels of public lands are often spirited, and that’s a good thing because that means people care passionately about these lands and want to be part of the solution. The fact that these are public lands means we can be part of these debates—and also craft solutions that work for our communities. Public lands work because we have a seat at the table. Let’s not give up our seats and leave all the decision-making to the few unelected Justices who sit at the Supreme Court. Take action to keep public lands in public hands at the link below!