Part I of Who owns Arizona land? argued that AZ land use is a mess. The article illustrated the mess with a Land Use map showing lots of land that contributes little to the tax base. The map is colorful with lots of green (national forests and such,) lots of orange (Indian Nations,) lots yellow (mostly BLM Land,) and lots of blue (Land Trust land.) The map shows the tax base with: a little bit of white (private land) sprinkled hither and yon around Arizona. The map dramatizes the fact that Arizona officials are greatly constrained when it comes to generating revenue to serve Arizonians.
The URL below leads to an interactive version of the Land Use map. I love this map. I can zoom in or out and click on any spot to find out whether the land is private or owned by some government creature. You might try zooming to your neighborhood or clicking on little spots of white (private land) in the midst of great chunks of yellow or green. There are human stories lurking there. http://gis.azland.gov/webapps/parcel/?loc=-111.8170,35.2216,12&layers=3,1,0
Part II below describes more about the mess and then offers a big idea about what we can do to begin cleaning up the mess.
Morris Udall, writing in 1964, laid out the basic facts, arguing that more Arizona land was needed to support economic development. He pointed out that the Feds owned 74% (53,900,000 acres), the State owned 14% (9,800,000 acres), and only 12% (8,800,000) was privately owned. He thought it would be better if more acreage were put to taxable uses, i.e., into private hands. Sadly, those percentages changed very little by 2016.
Udall knew what he was talking about. His brother, Stewart, was Secretary of the Interior; Mo had followed Stewart as AZ District 2 representative in Congress. Voters approved of Mo’s work, re-electing him again and again for 30 years until he finally succumbed to an urge to run for President. Mo opined in 1964 that privatizing land would be extremely difficult. Privatizing Federal land would be especially difficult, he said: about 21 million acres were Indian Reservations, 13 million acres were in National Forests and Wildlife refuges, 3.6 million acres were in military reservations, 1.4 million (including the Grand Canyon) were in National Parks, 1.4 million acres (Including Lake Meade) were set aside for federal water projects, and over 13 million acres were held by the federal Bureau of Land Management or Department of Interior.
Udall believed that privatizing most Federal land was a non-starter. Bits of BLM land could be sold through various tightly limited regulations; Udall did not expect to see much privatizing there. He believed any privatizing would have to be from the state owned 9.8 million acres. The problem was that much of that land was tightly protected by the 1910 Enabling Act which enabled Arizona to become a state. The US Congress had required that much state land be used to support education, K-12 and beyond. AZ Legislative attempts to change the use of Trust land weren’t going anywhere in 1962 and seem to have met the same fate since then.
Udall’s report concludes with these words:
“As Arizona grows and prospers it is obvious that we will need more and more privately owned land. A part of our federal lands should be made available for private development, but the available supply is not as large as one might think. … federal ownership of lands in Arizona is not “all bad”; some of our greatest economic and scenic assets –world-famous Grand Canyon, our magnificent National Forests and important military bases — are maintained by Uncle Sam. Few would have it otherwise.” http://www.library.arizona.edu/exhibits/udall/congrept/87th/620914.html
Today’s Arizona Land Use map shows essentially the same picture as the one Udall sketched with his prophetic words in 1962. But one thing has changed in the last 50 years; Udall’s statement “Few would have it otherwise” is not true today.
Some AZ citizens, myself included, believe that we should do the hard work necessary to untie the hands of AZ elected officials and support them as they attempt to “have it otherwise.” Grist for the “have it otherwise” mill can be found on the website of the American Lands Council which Gary Kiehne told me about. http://www.americanlandscouncil.org/ The American Lands Council was formed about 5 years ago in consultation with informed persons from 14 western states. It is nonpartisan and focuses on facts and issues.
Fact: The Federal government controls about 50% of the land west of the Rockies but only about 5% of the land east of the Rockies. (They attribute much of the difference to Missouri US Senator Thomas Hart Benson’s 30 years of work to bring about transfer of federal lands to a cluster of eastern states.)
Fact: states earn $14.21 cents per dollar spent for land management; the Feds lose 27 cents per dollar spent on land management, costing taxpayers nationally about $2 billion per year.
Informed opinion: University of California scientists have studied the situation and concluded that proper watershed management of forests would “preserve more than a quarter trillion gallons of water per year in drought-stricken California.”
Possible hyperbole: a map showing yellow dots showing the locations of out-of-control forest fires during a recent year; the dots cover the west in yellow but are scarce in the east. The data are real but, if each yellow dot had been smaller, the map wouldn’t have shown such a dramatic difference. (On the other hand, Mt. Lemmon homeowners would probably prefer an even more dramatic version—homes still standing after the 2003 fire were owned by persons who ignored the feds and cleared the underbrush away from their homes.)
The facts presented above are taken from an American Lands Council brochure A Time to Stand which argues that now is better than later as a time to transfer federal lands to states. http://www.americanlandscouncil.org/time_to_stand
The same facts and more are presented in a booklet that can be downloaded as a PDF file. http://www.americanlandscouncil.org/get_the_facts
The Frequently Asked Questions section of the Lands Council web site is a good place to get up to speed on some of the issues involved. (No, there is no attempt to grab the National Parks; the feds would keep them under the transfer plans being put forth.)
I went to the section on What’s happening in my state? There are links to a copy of the State Constitution and to the Enabling Act. There are several press releases. Most of the press releases address critics of land transfer but one shows an example of Senators Flake and McCain and 49 other Republican Senators voting like Republicans. (All Democrats voted no. It was a nonbinding resolution supporting land transfer.)
After that I went to the Resources section and spent a ton of time reading a Legal Analysis of the ownership issues. (Utah commissioned it as part of considering whether to sue the Feds for transfer of Federal lands to Utah. Other legal analyses have been done, including one by a Federalist Society attorney.)
I’ll report on legal analyses in Part III Making the Legal Case
There is much more to consider if Arizona citizens truly want to help Arizona officials regain control of our borders, our economy, our farm and ranchlands, and our great outdoors. For now, let us agree with Mo Udall: “As Arizona grows and prospers it is obvious that we will need more and more privately owned land.”