When Senator Mike Lee of Utah began calling for the sale of public lands in the western states last year, it raised a firestorm amongst westerners across the political spectrum. And, rightly so. Westerners don’t particularly love the federal agencies that manage those lands, but they like even less the idea of turning them over to private interests that will fence them off and exclude hunters, fishermen and others from accessing what westerners regard as their sacred heritage.

Some in Idaho’s Congressional delegation briefly flirted with Lee’s idea, but backed off quickly when they saw the rising outrage from Idahoans. Even Idaho’s Attorney General, who had earlier supported a federal lawsuit to force the turnover of federal lands to the states, went silent on the issue.

The public land issue has resurfaced in a somewhat different format during the current Idaho legislative session. Several legislators want to set constitutional requirements for how any future federal land grants to Idaho should be managed. While it may not seem to be an unreasonable question to address, it is pointless. Practically every Senator from a public land state has been frightened away from the idea of privatizing or transferring public lands to the states. But even if a transfer should happen, history tells us that the feds will direct the state how to utilize and manage any land transferred.

Four proposed constitutional amendments confuse future land transfers of land to the state with lands that the state received upon gaining statehood in 1890. The section of the Idaho Constitution, Article 9, section 8, that is the subject of the proposals is an important part of Idaho’s school law. That section deals with lands granted by the federal government to Idaho in 1890. Those grants were made for the sole purpose of financing Idaho’s public school system.

Section 8, as originally written, required the state to obtain “the maximum possible amount” from sale or rental of the school lands. The federal government approved of the language and granted Idaho 5.55% of the lands within the boundaries of the State. Those lands were to be held in what is often called a “Sacred Trust” for the sole benefit of the public schools. The Idaho Admission Bill, which is still the law of the United States, provided that those lands would “be reserved for school purposes only.”

As time went by, the “maximum possible amount” requirement was thought to be too restrictive, requiring short-term liquidation of lands and depletion of the land base. In 1982, Idaho voters approved a constitutional amendment to change the management requirement to the “maximum long-term financial return” (MLFR) from the school lands. The change has allowed our state to retain productive land and manage it for consistent, long-term, high-value returns. There is no compelling need to change that management directive.

The amendments proposed in the House, HJR 8 and HJR 10, would make a dramatic management change. They would replace the MLFR requirement with a “priority of use” scheme, giving first priority to “revenue-generating activity” and secondary priority to a variety of public uses. The undisputed fact is that over 96% of school lands are already open and accessible for the full range of public uses.

As far as revenue generation goes, the MLFR requirement brought in $58,435,191 for our public schools last year, 92.4% of which was produced by 749,017 acres of timberland with 4.5% coming from 1,357,461 acres of rangeland. Those funds go into the public school endowment fund for the benefit of public schools. Changes proposed in HJR 8 and HJR 10 would more than likely reduce those returns because the Legislature would be able to grant sweetheart deals to certain land users. In the past that has been attempted for the benefit of cabin site lessees and livestock grazers, but the courts have batted those attempts down because they violate the MLFR requirement.

There have been claims that the MLFR requirement has resulted in the rapid liquidation of school lands, but that is not true. Since 2015, the school land base has increased by about 53,000 acres. Timberland has increased by 65,191 acres since it is the primary revenue generator. Holdings of residential and commercial lands have decreased since user and legislative pressure has helped keep market rentals unattainable.

We have all served on the State Land Board, which manages the school trust lands. The greatest controversies have arisen when rentals on leased parcels near rapidly appreciating private properties are exceedingly low. For instance, we’ve had shoreline leaseholds with rentals that are nowhere near market value. A private landlord would not rent land for a small fraction of the going rate and neither should a governmental entity with trust responsibilities.

The present system has worked well to provide substantial funding for public schools, while also providing virtually unrestricted public access and usage of school lands. The system is not broken and does not need fixing. Further, the proposed fix is contrary to the wisdom of our constitutional founders and violative of the terms of the Idaho Admission Bill. Anyone wishing to read more about Idaho’s school trust lands can find a great resource online–“Idaho’s Endowment Lands: A Matter of Sacred Trust.”

Jerry Evans, former Idaho Superintendent of Public Instruction
Lawrence Wasden, former Idaho Attorney General
Ben Ysursa, former Idaho Secretary of State
Jim Jones former Idaho Attorney General
J.D. Williams, former Idaho State Controller