THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE WAS WRITTEN IN 2004 - WE ARE STILL WAITING FOR STATE LAND TRUST REFORM!

NEW POLICIES FOR STATE TRUST LANDS? MAYBE. BUT WHAT AND WHEN?
By Bob Eidsmoe, McDowell Park Association State Lands Committee Chairman

Arizona is big. 73 million acres, in fact. When Congress passed the State Enabling Act in 1910, it granted Arizona more than 10 million acres of federal lands that were and are designated as State Trust Lands. The federal enabling act required that the Arizona Constitution provide that revenues from the sale of the State Trust Lands are placed in a Permanent Fund. Interest from the Fund and revenues from the lease of State Trust Lands are required to be used primarily for the support of the "common schools. The State Land Department has a duty to maximize the return from the Trust Land and a duty to obtain the highest and best economic value for the land in the event of sale or lease.

The Characteristics of State Trust Lands
These lands are scattered throughout the state. Much of the land is leased for grazing and is in rural parts of the state, but there is a considerable a amount of state trust land in and around or urban areas. Immediately north of Fountain Hills and just south of McDowell Mountain Regional Park is 1300 acres of State Trust Land. Thousands of acres of State Trust Lands are in Scottsdale.

Much of the land is of spectacular beauty. Most of it is presently leased for grazing. But as metropolitan areas grow and land values skyrocket, pressure is placed on the State Land Department to sell some Trust Lands for development. There is no provision in the Arizona Constitution requiring or allowing the State Land Department to preserve State Trust Land for open space or conservation. When Arizona became a state, before the rapid increase in population of the West, the open space could not be contemplated. Consequently, by law, the present duty of the State Land Department is to maximize the financial return for schools.

Previous Attempts at Reform
In 1998, an attempt was made by the legislature to allow sale of State Trust Land to municipalities and counties for open space purposes. This was known as the Growing Smarter Act. But only minimal funding was provided by the legislature to assist municipalities fund the purchase price. The McDowell Mountain Park Association, the Fort McDowell Tribal Council, and the Town of Fountain Hills attempted to acquire the 1300 acres just north of Fountain Hills pursuant to the Growing Smarter Act. However, rising land prices and other commitments of Fountain Hills prevented this attempted purchase to be consummated. Other communities faced similar problems and the Growing Smarter Act has proved to be pretty much of a failure.

In 2000, the Arizona legislature caused what was known as Proposition 100 on the November general election ballot. This act would have amended the Arizona Constitution to set aside 3% or 270,000 acres of the 9.3 million acres of State Trust Land for open space. The voters of Arizona defeated this proposal; in effect saying that the 3% set aside for conservation was not enough.

The Fox Committee
Shortly thereafter, a committee was created, known as the Fox Committee (so named because of the last name of the Chairman), composed of representatives of educators, developers, ranchers, and a few environmental groups and land trusts. The Fox Committee worked in near secrecy for over two years trying to reconcile the various conflicting interests. In the fall of 2003, several members of the conservation community were asked to leave the discussions because they could not agree to a set of "deal points" crafted by the developers, some education representatives, a couple of conservation groups, and the livestock industry. When the Fox Committee released its proposal in November 2003, it was with the hope that the legislature would place it on the ballot for the November 2004 general election. Twenty-four conservation organizations, including the state's Audubon Societies, the Sierra Club, the Arizona Wildlife Federation and your McDowell Park Association, have expressed opposition to the adoption of this proposal.

The major objections are as follows:

1) THE PROPOSAL IS A VIRTUAL GIVEAWAY TO THE RANCHING INTERESTS.
Over eight million acres of the 9.3 million State Trust Lands are or can be subject to grazing leases. The proposed constitutional amendment effectively confers a right of automatic renewal to livestock grazers without competitive bidding and in some cases allows 25 year grazing leases, all with only limited oversight concerning land stewardship.

2) THE AMOUNT SET ASIDE FOR CONSERVATION PURPOSES IS TOO SMALL.
It would include less than 300,000 acres for conservation with the opportunity for acquisition of an additional 300,000 to 400,000 acres. This represents just over 3% of the 9.3 million acres of State Trust Land designated for conservation with the opportunity for cities and towns to acquire another 4.2%. But only 12,232 acres in Maricopa County would be eligible, with options for another 34,403 acres. The Fountain Hills tract is not included in the 12,232 acres. The Fox Report would designate for conservation purposes about the same amount of land that the voters said was not enough in November 2000.

3) MANY GROUPS ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE LIBERALIZED POLICY OF LAND TRADES OF STATE TRUST LAND.
Land swaps often result in the public getting less for the lands than they would in an actual sale. They also open up more public land for development. For example, if the state swapped to get sections of the Tonto National Forest north of Fountain Hills, those lands would become state trust lands and would likely be on the auction block for development, thus further exacerbating urban sprawl.

What’s Next?
The author of this article feels that the proposal is far too detailed and specific for a constitutional provision. It does not make sense to me to lock in stone, for the rest of this century, perhaps, detailed rights of ranchers and severe limits for open spaces. Western ranching is a declining industry and who knows how much land will be needed for that purpose or under what rules fifty years from now. On the other hand, demands for open space as Arizona's population grows will undoubtedly accelerate. The need for open space, and for development, may change, and exceed the need for ranching land at later stages of this century. Constitutional provisions tend to be difficult to amend and become very long term and inflexible. These provisions must also be approved by the US Congress, which must amend the act creating Arizona as a state.

The legislature did not act to place the Fox Committee report on the November 2004 general election ballot. Movements are underway to have the Governor call a special session of the legislature to place the report on the ballot at a special election to be called for spring 2005. Numerous conservation organizations are discussing needed revisions to this proposal. Sandy Bahr, Executive Director of the Grand Canyon Chapter Sierra Club will be speaking at our September 29 general meeting, and will be able to answer questions concerning this issue. Sandy opposes the adoption of the present form of the Fox Report. Carla of the McDowell Sonoran Land Trust will be the speaker at the November 10 general membership meeting. Carla is in favor of the Fox Report. Be sure to attend those meetings and hear about this important issue.

THOUGHTS ON A REFERENDUM ESTABLISHING AN ENABLING ACT FOR STATE TRUST LANDS by David E. Brown
(Wildlife Biologist David Brown spoke at an MPA meeting last year. Here are his thoughts on state land reform.)
Arizona desperately needs a new Enabling Act that would incorporate an Organic Act for its state trust lands. The old Enabling Act, which was designed to provide revenue for the state schools, is obsolete and needs to be replaced in toto. When the initial enabling Act was passed in 1910, Arizona was mostly open space with no tax base. Now, in 2004, the tax base is huge and open space is at a premium.
As almost any Arizonan can tell you, with our population of more than 5 ½ million, we are now “overdeveloped,” and much in need of a State Land Use Plan. At present, one can drive from Goldfield east of Apache Junction westward to Litchfield Park and northward to Anthem without ever being out of the sight of development—a distance similar to the mileage between Phoenix and Tucson. Similar development is now taking place in southern, western, eastern, and northern Arizona.
A new Enabling Act will probably have to be submitted to the electorate at a public referendum as the legislature is too beholden to developers and the construction industry to want to make any necessary changes in the Enabling Act and adopt a reasonable Organic Act. For this reason alone, the referendum must be designed to provide for as many Arizonans as possible—sportsmen, open space advocates, hikers, and general conservationists of every description. We must also provide for ranchers and a reasonable development program. Hence, the Act must first and foremost develop a statement of purpose that is acceptable to most of the public and prescribe a basic classification of all state lands employing the following categories:
• Lands to eventually be sold and developed (mostly within urban areas)
• Lands to be retained and managed as open space (open space preserves near cities)
• Lands to be retained and managed for multiple use (most of the state lands now held in trust, especially those occurring in blocks).
• Lands to be classified as suitable for trade (isolated parcels having no particular significance for conservation purposes)
The referendum will assign most of the classification and management duties to a State Lands Commission and will not prescribe leasing arrangements other than state that all leases and trades shall be in the interest of all of the people of Arizona, and that no trade will result in a net loss of acreage to the state.