PUBLIC LANDS: N.M. businesses urge state lawmakers to resist efforts to take federal lands
Scott Streater, E&E reporter
Published: Tuesday, November 18, 2014
Dozens of New Mexico businesses signed a letter sent today to the incoming members of the state Legislature, Gov. Susana Martinez (R) and other top state leaders urging them to reject attempts to force the transfer of millions of acres of federal lands to the state.
The 70 businesses aligned with the New Mexico Green Chamber of Commerce wrote in the five-page letter that the state cannot afford the costs to manage federal lands, which are a key contributor to the state's multibillion-dollar tourism industry. They also argue such efforts are unconstitutional.
The green chamber's letter was criticized today by Utah state Rep. Ken Ivory (R), a leading national advocate for state ownership of federal lands, who said it is based "on false premises" and ignores "the basis and express objectives driving the transfer of public lands movement throughout the West and the nation," which are better access and productivity for federal lands.
The letter follows consideration by the New Mexico Legislature the past two years of a flurry of unsuccessful bills proposing the transfer of federal lands to New Mexico. Similar legislation is expected when the Legislature convenes again in January -- when Republicans will be in control of the House for the first time in decades (the state Senate has a Democratic majority).
In addition, a number of Western states, disillusioned by Obama administration land-use policies that some argue favor conservation over other uses of public lands, such as mineral and oil and gas development, have approved legislation, proposed bills or taken other steps to have control of federal lands transferred to the states.
The Utah Legislature in 2012 approved a bill signed by Gov. Gary Herbert (R) that demands the federal government turn over control of public lands to the state.
"We strongly oppose such efforts to seize our public lands," the Green Chamber of Commerce's letter says.
Transferring federal lands to states is "bad for New Mexico and bad for our nation," the letter adds.
"First, many of our member businesses rely on unspoiled and accessible public lands to survive," the chamber's letter says. "From outdoor recreation businesses to hotels and restaurants, having a wealth of protected public places is the lifeblood of many in our economy. In fact, tourism generated $5.5 billion in spending in New Mexico in 2011, making it the second largest private industry in the state. Much of that tourism is reliant on national public lands. Moving these lands into state control makes many of our members very nervous, because states are more susceptible to the whims of policymakers who might choose to develop, sell or otherwise take these lands off the table forever."
The businesses also wrote that they are concerned about the cost of transferring federal lands to the states, arguing they "would be solely borne by New Mexico taxpayers, potentially creating the unintended consequence of increasing the tax burden for our state's residents and businesses."
"For these reasons and many more, our member businesses stand united against proposals for western states such as New Mexico to seize ownership of our national public lands," they wrote. "We will be following the issue actively in the upcoming legislative session."
Ongoing debate
Proponents of state control of federal lands have a different view.
The American Lands Council, one of the groups leading the effort for state control of federal lands, has approved a policy statement that calls for "the timely and orderly transfer of federal public lands to willing states for local control that will provide better public access, better environmental health and better economic productivity." The policy statement also calls for "excluding existing national parks, congressionally designated wilderness areas, Indian reservations, and military installations from the transfer."
The council's president is Ivory, the Utah lawmaker who helped push through the 2012 legislation demanding federal transfer of public lands to the state.
Ivory said today in an emailed statement that the American Lands Council's policy statement "and the legislation in every state addressing the issue so far" expressly calls for "'federal public lands' to become 'state public lands.'"
"When groups and individuals foment fear based on false premises, one must wonder why they do not explore the facts in order to have a rational, fact-based discussion about how to better protect access, health and productivity of our lands -- all of which are being diminished under increasing control of a federal government that is over indebted and overstretched in conflicts and issues around the world," he wrote.
He added, "We are confident that once such groups begin to engage in a rational, good faith dialogue based on the facts and actual circumstances on the ground, we can all come to a workable solution at the most local level for better access, better health, and better productivity for our public lands."
But the Missoula, Mont.-based Backcountry Hunters and Anglers last week released a report warning that the transfer of federal lands to Western states could reduce access to quality wildlife habitat for hunters and fishermen (Greenwire, Nov. 14).
And the Denver-based conservation group Center for Western Priorities last month established a new website designed to counter efforts by advocacy groups and "right-wing politicians" that the center says "are lobbying state governments to seize America's public lands so they can be privatized or auctioned for drilling, mining and logging" (Greenwire, Oct. 23).
Jessica Goad, advocacy director for the Center for Western Priorities, said the group believes that lawmakers in New Mexico "will try yet again to push their shortsighted and costly proposal through in the 2015 legislative session."
"This letter from New Mexico businesses reminds their leaders about the tremendous importance of public lands to the economy," she said. "It couldn't have come at a better time."
