U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

82–947 PDF 2014

SCHOOL TRUST LANDS 

OWNERSHIP WITHIN FEDERAL 

CONSERVATION AREAS 

OVERSIGHT HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS 

AND ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

Tuesday, September 10, 2013 

Serial No. 113–40 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

or 

Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

DOC HASTINGS, WA, Chairman 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, OR, Ranking Democratic Member 

Don Young, AK 

Louie Gohmert, TX 

Rob Bishop, UT 

Doug Lamborn, CO 

Robert J. Wittman, VA 

Paul C. Broun, GA 

John Fleming, LA 

Tom McClintock, CA 

Glenn Thompson, PA 

Cynthia M. Lummis, WY 

Dan Benishek, MI 

Jeff Duncan, SC 

Scott R. Tipton, CO 

Paul A. Gosar, AZ 

Rau ́l R. Labrador, ID 

Steve Southerland, II, FL 

Bill Flores, TX 

Jon Runyan, NJ 

Mark E. Amodei, NV 

Markwayne Mullin, OK 

Chris Stewart, UT 

Steve Daines, MT 

Kevin Cramer, ND 

Doug LaMalfa, CA 

Jason T. Smith, MO 

Eni F. H. Faleomavaega, AS 

Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ 

Grace F. Napolitano, CA 

Rush Holt, NJ 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, AZ 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU 

Jim Costa, CA 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, CNMI 

Niki Tsongas, MA 

Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR 

Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI 

Tony Ca ́ rdenas, CA 

Steven A. Horsford, NV 

Jared Huffman, CA 

Raul Ruiz, CA 

Carol Shea-Porter, NH 

Alan S. Lowenthal, CA 

Joe Garcia, FL 

Matt Cartwright, PA 

Vacancy 

Todd Young, Chief of Staff 

Lisa Pittman, Chief Legislative Counsel 

Penny Dodge, Democratic Staff Director 

David Watkins, Democratic Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS AND ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION 

ROB BISHOP, UT, Chairman 

RAU ́ L M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Democratic Member 

Don Young, AK 

Louie Gohmert, TX 

Doug Lamborn, CO 

Paul C. Broun, GA 

Tom McClintock, CA 

Cynthia M. Lummis, WY 

Scott R. Tipton, CO 

Rau ́l R. Labrador, ID 

Mark E. Amodei, NV 

Steve Daines, MT 

Kevin Cramer, ND 

Doug LaMalfa, CA 

Jason T. Smith, MO 

Doc Hastings, WA, ex officio 

Niki Tsongas, MA 

Rush Holt, NJ 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, CNMI 

Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR 

Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI 

Steven A. Horsford, NV 

Carol Shea-Porter, NH 

Joe Garcia, FL 

Matt Cartwright, PA 

Vacancy 

Peter A. DeFazio, OR, ex officio 

(III) 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Hearing held on Tuesday, September 10, 2013 ..................................................... 1 

Statement of Members: 

Bishop, Hon. Rob, a Representative in Congress from the State of Utah ... 1 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 2 

Grijalva, Hon. Rau ́l M., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Arizona ...................................................................................................... 2 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 3 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Baier, Maria, Chief Executive Officer, Sonoran Institute ............................. 12 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 13 

Donaldson, Timothy, School Children’s Trust Director, Utah State Office 

of Education ................................................................................................... 4 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 5 

Opp, Kathy, President, Western State Land Commissioners Association 

and Deputy Director, Idaho Department of Lands .................................... 6 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 7 

Additional Material Submitted for the Record: 

Abrams, Mary M., Ph.D., Director, Oregon Department of State Lands, 

Prepared statement of .................................................................................. 22 

Ogsbury, James D., Western Governors’ Association, Letter submitted 

for the record ................................................................................................. 24 

(1) 

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON SCHOOL TRUST 

LANDS OWNERSHIP WITHIN FEDERAL 

CONSERVATION AREAS 

Tuesday, September 10, 2013 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation 

Committee on Natural Resources 

Washington, DC 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:05 a.m., in room 

1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Rob Bishop [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Bishop, McClintock, Lummis, Daines, 

Cramer, Grijalva, and Garcia. 

Mr. BISHOP. All right, the committee will come to order, even 

though you are not doing anything out there, anyway. We notice 

the presence of a quorum who is here. 

The Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation is meeting today to hear testimony on school trust land ownership and the relationship with Federal conservation areas. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. ROB BISHOP, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH 

Mr. BISHOP. With the approval of the committee, I am going to 

put most of my statement in its written form in there. I just want 

to highlight the fact that we are talking about States’ trust lands 

that are scattered out especially in the West, where we have millions of acres, but many of them are locked up in areas in which 

we cannot get to them, which they cannot be used, where their 

value is not as significant as if they were actually blocked together 

into a usable pattern. Western management is extremely significant to that. It has taken us a long time to try and move those 

things forward. 

In Utah, for example, we passed a law trying to speed this process up in 2009. That fast track still hasn’t come into effect. So if 

our fast-track effort is taking a half-a-decade we realize that something is terribly wrong with the system and the process, and it 

needs to be fixed. 

So, I appreciate inviting the witnesses who have come here, who 

I think will tell us that there is possibly a way of doing it, if once 

again we all are with patience, with good will, try to work in a collaborative effort to find the best solution to how we find these 

lands and how we use these lands. 

So, I appreciate the witnesses who are with us. I understand one 

of our witnesses has missed a connecting flight, so may or may not 

actually show up at some time. But we thank you for your efforts 

to travel here. 

2 

With that, I wish the rest of my statement to be placed into the 

record, and I will turn to Representative Grijalva, first of all, for 

opening statements. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bishop follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ROB BISHOP, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE

ON PUBLIC LANDS AND ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION

The Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation is meeting 

today to hear testimony on school trust land ownership and the relationship with 

Federal conservation areas. State trust lands, granted to the Western States at 

statehood, are to be managed for the benefit of public education. The scattered, 

checkerboard-like pattern of State trust lands places many parcels in restrictive federally designated conservation areas, complicating management and severely limiting the land’s value for the beneficiaries. Nearly 1,000,000 acres of State trust 

lands are inaccessible because they are located within these restrictive federally designated areas. 

Consolidating State trust lands in high value, mineral-rich, and accessible areas 

should be a priority for this committee, the entire Congress, the administration, and 

non-governmental stakeholders. Trust land consolidation boosts public education 

funding, creates jobs and economic diversity for rural communities, and allows Federal land managers to oversee cohesive landscapes. This type of win-win-win rarely 

exists in western land management topics. 

The existing process to consolidate trust lands is broken. Despite the win-win scenarios created by consolidations, land exchanges are too costly, too timely, and overly bureaucratic. In Utah, a congressional-directed land exchange authorized in 

2009 has yet to be completed. Congress directed this exchange in order to bypass 

the sluggish administrative route. If the fast-track option takes more than 4 years, 

it’s safe to assume that all aspects of the system—both congressional and administrative—are flawed and reform is needed. 

Western land management has a profound impact on families, local communities, 

and future generations. Congress, land managers, and stakeholders must work together to develop land management strategies that make sense for all involved. Successful land management strategies can only be achieved when land management 

agencies, stakeholders, and elected officials work together, like we are here today 

in this open meeting. No single agency, interest, or constituency should trump another. The stakes are too high to ignore other interests or to be so rigid in one’s 

mission as to preclude long-term development opportunities. Win-win scenarios can 

be achieved, but they will require an openness to collaborate, think differently, and 

to break the bureaucratic tendencies of the past. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. RAU ́ L M. GRIJALVA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 

holding the hearing. I want to also thank the witnesses for taking 

time out of their busy schedules to testify today. 

As a former school board member, school trust lands are very important, as a source of revenue, in trying to meet the overall budgetary and curricular demands that any school district has anywhere, and particularly in the West. And I am going to hear about 

a proposal today that allows States to trade trust lands surrounded 

by Federal land for other unappropriated Federal land. States and 

education proponents are clear benefactors of this proposal. And, if 

done right, a proposal like this could find support among conservation groups and Federal land managers. 

As an advantage to consolidating Federal land, it helps land 

managers be able to focus their resources on concentrated areas, 

and states will be able to find new and more effective, efficient 

ways to fund public education. I think the whole proposal is about 

getting the details right. 

3 

And, moving forward, we have to have—we have to ensure that 

land exchanges are transparent and open, following established 

Federal standards, and not taking unnecessary shortcuts. We do 

not want to shortcut or sideline any commitment in order to make 

this work. Environmental review and protected endangered species 

cannot be tossed out with the bathwater. 

I am looking forward to hearing from our witnesses. And, like I 

said, if done correctly, this can be a win-win for everybody involved. 

With that, let me yield back, and thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Grijalva follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE RAU ́ L M. GRIJALVA, RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS AND ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. I would also like to thank 

the witnesses for taking the time out of their schedules to testify today. 

School trust lands are an important source of revenue for public education in 

many States, especially across the West. I started my political career as a school 

board member and understand how it important it is to make sure our schools have 

the resources they need to meet the growing challenges of educating our Nation’s 

youth. 

Congress granted States entering the union trust land with the sole purpose of 

providing revenue for public education. Since then, a lot has happened. We’ve established national parks and other Federal conservation areas, protecting some of the 

most important aspects of our national and cultural heritage. 

Our public lands are visited by millions of Americans each year and outdoor recreation supports over 6 million jobs across the county. Our conservation successes are 

a major economic engine for the country and a source inspiration for the millions 

of annual visitors, but there are still challenges we have to address. 

Today we will hear about a proposal to allow States to trade trust land surrounded by Federal land for other, unappropriated Federal land. States and education proponents are the clear benefactors of this proposal, but if done right, a proposal like this could also find support with conservation groups and Federal land 

managers. Consolidating ownership of Federal lands can be a win-win that will save 

taxpayer money and improve conservation efforts. 

Land managers will be able to focus their resources on concentrated areas and 

States will be able to find new and more efficient ways to fund public education. 

Getting the details right is paramount. Moving forward, we have to ensure that 

land exchanges are transparent and open, following established Federal standards 

and not taking unnecessary shortcuts. We do not want to shortcut or sideline any 

other commitments in order to make this work. Environmental review and protected 

endangered species cannot be tossed out with the bathwater. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses and starting this important conversation. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. Under the rules, obviously, opening 

statements are required by the chairmen. The subcommittee and 

full committee, any other Member who wishes to have an opening 

statement can be part of the record if given to our staff by the close 

of business today. 

I’d like to welcome you here. We will turn to our first panel, if 

we could. And we welcome Tim Donaldson, who is the School Children’s Trust Director from the Office of Education in the State of 

Utah; Kathy Opp, who is the Deputy Director of Department of 

Lands in the State of Idaho; and Maria Baier? 

Ms. BAIER. Baier. 

Mr. BISHOP. Baier. Got the German right the first time. OK. 

Maria Baier, who is the Chief Executive Officer of the Sonoran Institute. We welcome all of you. We appreciate you traveling this 

distance to give the testimony that you have today. Your written 

4 

testimony is, obviously, part of the record. We will ask for you to 

add your oral testimony on top of that, and then be open for questions afterwards. 

For those of you who have not been here before, the oral testimony is limited to 5 minutes. We are on a time line. There is a 

time when we want to end. So we would ask you to watch the clock 

ahead of you diligently. When the light is green on there, you still 

have plenty of time. When it is yellow, you don’t have a whole lot 

of time. You have got 1 minute left. Hustle it up, because when it 

is red I want you to stop, even if you are in mid-sentence. And we 

will apply that same standard to us, when we ask questions, as 

well. 

So, let me turn to the panel. We thank you for being here. 

Mr. Donaldson, we are ready for your opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF TIMOTHY DONALDSON, SCHOOL CHILDREN’S 

TRUST DIRECTOR, UTAH STATE OFFICE OF EDUCATION 

Mr. DONALDSON. Thank you, Chairman, Ranking Member, and 

members of the subcommittee, my name is Tim Donaldson, and I 

am the School Children’s Trust Section Director at the Utah State 

Office of Education. I thank the subcommittee for conducting this 

hearing on the critical issue of how to resolve the tensions between 

school trust lands and Federal land ownership. I am before you 

today to support this new idea to accommodate more effective 

school trust land management, and improve Federal conservation 

management. 

Funding public education in Utah is one of our more intractable 

public policy problems. In Utah we have seen dramatic growth in 

funding for public education coming from the school land trust program. In the 2000–2001 school year, for example, 13 years ago, the 

school trust provided approximately $5 million for public education, 

which was less than 1⁄10 of 1 percent of the overall education budget. For the school year which just began, this 2013–2014 school 

year, the distribution from the school trust was over 37 million, 

which was over 1.2 percent of the overall public education budget. 

This is fast-growing money which has doubled in size approximately every 5 years. 

It is also tax-free money, which makes it a gold mine for helping 

with the challenge of funding public schools in our State, a State 

which has the lowest per-pupil spending for public education in the 

country. With the uniquely large ratio of K through 12 students to 

taxpaying workers in Utah, the need is dire for us to maximize 

every public education funding resource that we have. 

There are other Western States which provide for a significantly 

larger proportion of the public education budget through their 

school trust lands and corresponding permanent school funds. It is 

our belief in Utah that the school trust will be a big part of the 

solution as we work to more fully fund public education in the 

years and decades to come. 

There have been decades of contention in Utah between public 

education advocates and Federal land management agencies, as 

hundreds of thousands of school trust land acres were captured in 

national parks, monuments, and other Federal conservation designated areas. Had this proposal, which is before you today, been 

5 

in effect then, the interest of public education would have been 

more fully valued, and tensions would have been diminished. 

As a quick historical reminder, Thomas Jefferson was a critical 

early supporter of public education in America. And the school 

trust lands largely owe their existence to his vision. Jefferson envisioned a self-governing republic of educated, informed citizens enjoying the blessings of civilization and the arts, advancing scientific 

knowledge, and developing technology to enhance and enrich the 

way we all live our lives. 

Finally, on a personal note, my wife is a first-grade teacher at 

a West Side school in Salt Lake County. Mrs. D, as her students 

call her, has 33 students in her classroom this year, including one 

student with autism, one student with Asperger’s, and one student 

who is a refugee from Iraq. She does not have an aide. More school 

trust lands money would help provide for more teachers and more 

aides. 

I see in here every night how challenging it is for our educators 

to fulfill the promise of our society and provide a high-quality public education to all of our students. We need to fully utilize every 

resource that we have to help fund public education. We need the 

tools in place to work through the inevitable land management conflicts in such a way that Jefferson’s vision of lands held in trust 

to support public education can fully be realized. 

I thank the subcommittee for your attention to this important 

matter, and we look forward to working with you as legislation is 

crafted that can gain broad, bipartisan support, and ultimately be 

enacted to help better fund the education of our children. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I would be happy 

to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Donaldson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF TIMOTHY DONALDSON, SCHOOL CHILDREN’S TRUST

DIRECTOR, UTAH STATE OFFICE OF EDUCATION

Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva, and members of the subcommittee, 

my name is Tim Donaldson and I am the Director of the School Children’s Trust 

Section at the Utah State Office of Education. I thank the subcommittee for conducting this hearing on the critical issue of how to resolve the tensions between 

school trust lands and Federal land ownership. I am before you today to support 

this new idea to accommodate more effective school trust land management and improved Federal conservation management. 

In Utah we have seen dramatic growth in funding for public education coming 

from the School LAND Trust Program. In the 2000–2001 school year, the school 

trust provided approximately $5 million for public education, which was less than 

1⁄10 of 1 percent of the overall public education. For the school year which just began, the 2013–2014 school year, the school trust distribution was over $37 million, 

which represented 1.2 percent of the overall public education budget. This is fastgrowing money, which has doubled in size approximately every 5 years. It is also 

tax-free money, which makes it a gold mine for helping with the challenge of funding public schools in our State, a State which has the lowest per-pupil spending for 

public education in the country. With a uniquely large ratio of K–12 students to taxpaying workers in Utah, the need is dire for us to fully maximize every public education funding resource that we have. 

There are other Western States which provide for a significantly larger proportion 

of the public education budget through their school trust lands and corresponding 

permanent school funds. It is our belief in Utah that the school trust will be a big 

part of the solution as we work to more fully fund public education in the years and 

decades to come. There have been decades of contention in Utah between public 

education advocates and Federal land management agencies, as hundreds of thousands of school trust land acres were captured in national parks, monuments, and 

other Federal conservation designations. Had this proposal which is before you 

6 

today been in effect then, the interests of public education would have been more 

fully valued and tensions would have been diminished. 

Thomas Jefferson was a critical early supporter of public education in America, 

and the school trust lands largely owe their existence to his vision. Jefferson envisioned a self-governing republic of educated, informed citizens enjoying the blessings 

of civilization and the arts, advancing scientific knowledge, and developing technology to enhance and enrich the way we all live our lives. 

My wife is a first grade teacher at a west-side school in Salt Lake County. Ms. 

Donaldson has 33 students in her classroom this school year, including one student 

with Autism, one student with Asperger’s, and one student who is a refugee from 

Iraq, and she does not have an aide. More school trust lands money would help provide for more teachers and aides. I see and hear every night how challenging it is 

for our educators to fulfill the promise of our society and provide a high-quality public education to all of our students. We need to fully utilize every resource that we 

have to fund public education. We need the tools in place to work through the inevitable land management conflicts in such a way that Jefferson’s vision of lands held 

in trust to support public education can be fully realized. 

We thank the subcommittee for your attention to this important matter and we 

look forward to working with you as legislation is crafted that can gain broad bipartisan support and ultimately be enacted to help better fund the education of our 

children. Thank you for the opportunity to testify and I would be happy to answer 

any questions. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. We will turn now to Ms. Opp. 

Welcome from the Gem State. Once again, 5 minutes for your 

opening statement. We are happy to have you. 

STATEMENT OF KATHY OPP, PRESIDENT, WESTERN STATE 

LAND COMMISSIONERS ASSOCIATION AND DEPUTY DIRECTOR, IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF LANDS 

Ms. OPP. Good morning, Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member 

Grijalva, and members of the subcommittee. My name is Kathy 

Opp, and I am the current President of the Western State Land 

Commissioners Association, as well as being Deputy Director for 

the Idaho Department of Lands. I thank this subcommittee for conducting this hearing this morning to examine a new tool, which is 

actually an old tool, for potentially resolving land tenure issues between State endowment trust lands and Federal land management. 

The WSLCA is comprised of 23 Western States who share a common mandate for managing trust lands on behalf of our schoolchildren in each of our States. As a group, we are the second-largest land manager in the Nation, second only to the Federal Government. Currently, our combined educational trust funds amount to 

over $271 billion. And in 2012 we earned and distributed over $3.8 

billion for public schools, primarily K through 12. Our members 

manage lands for multiple purposes, commercial and residential 

development, mineral and energy development, timber harvest, agriculture production, critical wildlife habitat, recreation, open 

space, and a myriad of other revenue-generating opportunities for 

our beneficiaries. 

By nature of the statehood acts, the millions of acres that we received are interspersed with Federal land ownership in the West: 

93 percent of current Federal ownership lies within 11 most western States and Alaska. Their Federal ownership comprises 52 percent of the land base. And in Idaho, for example, 62 percent of all 

the lands are owned by the Federal Government. 

The inter-mingled lands that are owned by the Department of 

the Interior and the U.S. Forest Service have very different land 

7 

management mandates from the legal mandate that is placed upon 

State trust land managers. The States are obligated to manage endowment lands with undivided loyalty to a single purpose: to general revenue for public schools and our State institutions. 

Existing administrative and legislative solutions to resolved 

mixed ownership is costly, complicated, and unpredictable. Federal 

policies and guidelines have made exchanges nearly impossible to 

complete in a reasonable timeframe. Many of our member States 

cite specific examples of such exchanges taking well over a decade. 

And the funding to purchase State trust lands in holdings has been 

eliminated due to ongoing concerns of fiscal responsibility. 

So, the bottom line is that the existing options to remove State 

lands from within Federal conservation areas just don’t seem to 

work effectively. 

The WSLCA is proposing legislation similar to existing Federal 

statutes that permit in lieu selections of Federal public lands. The 

process, which was used at statehood, allowed the States to select 

Federal lands, in lieu of those that were already encumbered due 

to existing ownership at statehood, from designations like homesteads or an Indian reservation. Replacement lands would be chosen from unappropriated Federal public lands within the State. 

We believe we have built a broad spectrum of support for our 

proposal, including the WGA, whose materials we submitted with 

testimony. 

We are now turning to this committee to assist in crafting bipartisan legislation that will implement a satisfactory proposal. 

In conclusion, it is important to note that the current proposal 

is not a proposal to dispose of the Federal public land base. Rather, 

it is a mechanism for the United States to acquire State trust lands 

with high conservation values, while timely and equitably compensating the States for the same through alternative selections. 

Because the in lieu mechanism has worked previously by Congress, we don’t believe it will be difficult to implement. Existing 

and proposed conservation designations on Federal lands which 

trap State endowment trust lands have the effect of depriving 

Western States of fulfilling our fiduciary duty to educate its citizenry. The proposed legislation promotes conservation, while giving 

the States the benefit of their statehood bargain with the United 

States. 

I thank the committee for your attention to this issue and this 

matter, and we look forward to working with you to craft legislation to gain broad support and ultimately enact a better way to 

fund education for our children. Thank you for your time and opportunity to testify. I would be happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Opp follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KATHY OPP, PRESIDENT, WESTERN STATE LAND

COMMISSIONERS ASSOCIATION AND DEPUTY DIRECTOR, IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF LANDS

Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva, and members of the subcommittee, 

my name is Kathy Opp and I am the current President of the Western State Land 

Commissioners Association in addition to my duties as the Deputy Director of the 

Idaho Department of Lands. I thank the subcommittee for conducting this hearing 

to examine how to resolve the land tenure issues between State school and institutional trust lands and Federal land ownership. I am before you today to propose a 

new tool for States to more effectively manage our school trust lands and to improve 

the management of Federal conservation lands. 

8 

The Western States Land Commissioners Association (‘‘WSLCA’’) is comprised of 

23 western, and some not so western, States who share the common mandate of 

managing trust lands on behalf of school children in our States. These lands are 

managed on a bi-partisan basis, with the beneficiaries first and foremost to our mission. Upon statehood, our member States were entrusted with hundreds of millions 

of acres of lands and minerals to be managed specifically to provide funding for public education and other State institutions. Today, our member States manage over 

447 million acres of public trust lands, endowed trust lands, submerged lands, and 

minerals. To put this in perspective, 447 million acres is roughly 21⁄2 times the size 

of Texas. As a group, we are the second largest land manager in the Nation, second 

only to the Federal Government. Since 1949, our Association has gathered with the 

goal to educate and inform one another about sound policy and best practices to ever 

improve the management of these lands on behalf of our beneficiaries. Currently, 

our combined educational trusts amount to over $271 billion which generated over 

$3.8 billion for public schools in 2012. Our members manage land for many purposes, including mineral and energy development, timber, agricultural production, 

commercial and residential development, open space, critical wildlife habitat, recreation, and a myriad of other uses that generate funds for public schools and other 

endowed institutions. 

The vast majority of the 447 million acres of lands and minerals that our member 

States manage by the nature of our statehood acts are interspersed with Federal 

lands throughout the West. During early settlement in the Midwest from 1803 to 

1858, States were granted one section per township. In the arid West, between 1859 

and 1890, States were provided with two sections per township, and in the really 

arid West, meaning Utah, Arizona, and New Mexico, these States were granted four 

sections per township. Ninety-three percent of the Federal lands lie within the 11 

most Western States and Alaska. There, Federal ownership comprises 52 percent of 

these States. In Idaho, approximately 62 percent of all lands within the State are 

owned by the Federal Government. In many cases, the scattered State sections are 

intertwined with lands managed by the Department of the Interior and the U.S. 

Forest Service where land management mandates vary drastically from the legal 

mandates placed upon State trust land managers. Pursuant to our statehood acts 

and State constitutional mandates, States are obligated to manage these lands with 

undivided loyalty to a single purpose—to generate revenue for public schools and 

state institutions. 

According to the U.S. Supreme Court in Andrus v. Utah, ‘‘the school land grant 

was a ‘solemn agreement’ which in some ways may be analogized to a contract between private parties. The United States agreed to cede some of its land to the State 

in exchange for a commitment by the State to use the revenues derived from the 

land to educate the citizenry.’’ However, because the settlement and privatization 

of Federal lands largely came to an end with the passage of the Taylor Grazing Act 

in 1934, millions of acres of trust lands remain within Federal ownership. For almost a century, Congress has made decisions to reclassify Federal lands with a wide 

range of management and policy prescriptions. While the Park Service approaches 

its 100th anniversary and as the country now appreciates nearly 50 years of designated Wilderness, the mandate for school trust lands has remained constant for 

over 200 years. Congressional actions and policy decisions over the decades have 

locked up millions of acres of school lands and minerals within National Parks, Wilderness areas, Wildlife Refuges, National Monuments and other Federal designations. In order to keep the ‘‘solemn promise’’ to the school children of our States, 

we must craft effective tools to move these trapped state trust lands and minerals 

from within constrictive Federal ownership into other locations where the generation of income is appropriate and acceptable. 

Existing administrative and legislative solutions are costly, complicated, unpredictable, and horribly time consuming. Administrative land exchanges with agencies 

within the Department of the Interior or with the U.S. Forest Service are inadequate as the sole tool to complete land transfers between States and the Federal 

Government. The Department of Interior has implemented policies and guidelines 

that have made administrative exchanges nearly impossible to complete in any reasonable timeframe. Moreover, the Department has failed to make the exchange process a priority and therefore funding has been woefully inadequate for years. Many 

of our member States can cite specific examples of administrative exchanges taking 

over a decade to complete. 

Frustrated with the administrative process, some States have turned to Congress 

to effectuate these exchanges. The Owyhee Land Exchange is an Idaho example. 

The Owyhee Initiative designated 517,000 acres of wilderness (map shown Attachment A) with the goal to create and maintain a functioning, unfragmented landscape. Since 2008 the BLM and the Idaho Department of Lands have identified apVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:07 Oct 10, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\04 PUBLIC LANDS & ENV\04SE10 1ST SESS\9-10-13 P\82947.TXT DARLEN
9 

proximately 35,000 acres on each side of the ownership equation that is in the best 

interest of both entities to exchange within the area. The best case scenario for estimated completion is now 2015. In the interim, Federal permittees and State trust 

land lessees remain in limbo, unable to effectively plan an economically viable future. 

As the committee is well aware, the congressional process is unpredictable, often 

expensive, and can still take years to complete even if there is broad support for 

a proposed exchange. Last, funding to purchase State inholdings within Federal conservation areas has essentially disappeared as budgets for these purposes have been 

reduced dramatically over recent decades to address ongoing concerns of fiscal responsibility. The bottom line is that our existing options for removing State lands 

from within Federal conservation areas just do not work effectively. 

For several years, WSLCA has been working with our member States, Members 

of Congress, and outside groups to craft a proposal that we believe will be an effective tool to allow States to efficiently remove their lands from inside Federal conservation areas and relocate these values to locations that are more appropriate for 

the generation of revenue for schools and state institutions. Additionally, our proposal will enhance Federal conservation and management areas by eliminating the 

State owned inholdings. We believe we have built a broad spectrum of support for 

our concept and we are now turning to this committee to assist in crafting bi-partisan legislation that will implement our proposal. 

As a supplement to exchanges and purchases, WSLCA is proposing legislation 

similar to the existing Federal statutes (43 U.S.C. 851–852) that permit State ‘‘in 

lieu’’ selections of Federal public lands. These statutes, originally codified as Revised 

Statutes 2275–2276, allow western land grant States to select Federal lands in lieu 

of lands originally granted to the States that ended up not being available due to 

preexisting conveyances or Federal special purpose designations. By way of example, 

if the Federal Government had created an Indian reservation or issued a homestead 

patent before a State’s title to a particular State parcel had vested, the state was 

entitled to select an equal amount of available Federal land in lieu of the lands that 

were lost (in lieu selections are often synonymously referred to as ‘‘indemnity’’ selections). 

By creating new conservation designations that have limited the States from utilizing school lands for their intended purposes, the United States has in a very real 

sense failed to live up to the promise of the statehood land grants. The WSLCA proposal would help rectify this situation by confirming the right of the States to relinquish State trust lands within Federal conservation designations to the United 

States, and select replacement Federal lands outside such areas. This would allow 

the Federal Government to obtain unified ownership and management authority 

over areas deemed important for conservation management. It would also uphold 

the ‘‘bargain’’ struck by the United States and the Western States under which the 

States would be granted useable land for the support of public schools and other 

public institutions. Concerns also exist within many Western States about recent petitions to list threatened and endangered species, particularly the sage grouse. 

Where priority habitat for sage grouse exists within these conservation designations, 

this circumstance could likely create additional constraints to managing State lands. 

This bill would facilitate another means by which States could dispose of lands constrained by threatened and/or endangered species considerations. 

The mechanism of relinquishment and selection has been utilized previously by 

Congress, and should not be difficult to implement. Under the WSLCA proposal, 

States owning lands within Federal conservation designations would simply deed 

the lands back to the United States, subject to any valid existing rights. This conveyance would entitle the states to select replacement lands from the unappropriated Federal public lands within the State utilizing the existing process for such selections set forth in 43 CFR part 2620 (2010). WSLCA believes that the Federal legislation should also incorporate the following concepts previously adopted by the Department of the Interior in its guidance and agreements concerning state indemnity 

selections: 

—In the application of law, regulations and policy concerning indemnity selections, the equities of the States should be considered to the greatest degree 

permitted; 

—Valuation of lands relinquished by the States, and State selections, should be 

based on ‘‘roughly equivalent value’’, utilizing appropriate valuation materials, but not requiring expensive formal appraisals; 

—Because BLM Resource Management Plans (RMPs) rarely mention State indemnity selections, it is appropriate to presume that State selections are 

10 

plan-compliant unless significant public values will be lost or impaired by the 

selection; and 

—Conveyance of lands to the States through the selection process should be 

deemed to be in the national interest under section 102(a)(1) of FLPMA. 

All of the above concepts were agreed by the BLM in a Memorandum of Understanding between BLM and WSLCA dated January 8, 1981, and incorporated in departmental guidance in 1981 and 1982. These concepts were recently reiterated in 

the Master Bureau-wide Memorandum of Understanding Between United States 

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management and The Western States 

Land Commissioners Association Concerning Management of Public and State Trust 

Lands and Resources in the Western United States, Agreement Number BLM–WO– 

300–2012–02. In addition to these items, WSLCA believes that it is appropriate to 

impose reasonable time deadlines on the BLM’s processing of State selection applications, because the recent experience of the States has been that BLM is often 

hampered given competing demands and limited budgets to process state selection 

actions in a timely manner. 

At the same time, WSLCA acknowledges environmental and economic realities associated with the transfer of lands out of Federal ownership. WSLCA does not object 

to requirements for NEPA analysis of State selections (so long as BLM continues 

its customary practice of funding necessary studies). In addition, because selections 

would be limited to unappropriated public lands, the right to select lands would not 

extend to areas such as wilderness, national forests, and other conservation or special purpose designations. 

In conclusion, it is important to note that the current proposal is not a proposal 

for the disposition of the Federal public land base, rather a mechanism for the 

United States to acquire State trust lands with high conservation values, while 

timely and equitably compensating the States for the same through the selection of 

replacement lands. The U.S. Supreme Court has clearly held that the original purpose of the in lieu selection process was to give the States the benefit of the bargain 

struck at statehood—if lands were not available to the states for educational purposes, the States could select replacement lands. Existing and proposed conservation 

designations on Federal lands have the effect of depriving the Western States of the 

ability to use granted trust lands for their original purpose—public education. The 

proposed legislation promotes conservation while giving the States the benefit of 

their statehood bargain with the United States. 

We thank the subcommittee for your attention to this important matter and we 

look forward to working with you to craft legislation that can gain broad support 

and ultimately be enacted to better fund the education of our children. Thank you 

for the opportunity to testify and I would be happy to answer any questions. 

11 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, again, for your testimony. 

Ms. Baier, we will turn to you from the Sonoran Institute for the 

same 5-minute opening statement, please. 


82947.001.eps
12 

STATEMENT OF MARIA BAIER, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, 

SONORAN INSTITUTE 

Ms. BAIER. Oh, thank you. Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member 

Grijalva, Congresswomen, Congressmen, thank you for the privilege of testifying before this subcommittee today. 

Mr. BISHOP. I don’t want to interrupt you again, either, I am 

sorry, but can you pull that even closer to your mouth? 

Ms. BAIER. Yes. Does that work better? 

Mr. BISHOP. That is much better. 

Ms. BAIER. OK, thank you. For the record, my name is Maria 

Baier, and I am the CEO of the Sonoran Institute, which is a 

501(c)3 non-profit organization that does land conservation work 

across Western North America. The Sonoran Institute has been interested in land management issues since its inception, and we 

have produced a number of publications on the subject, some of 

which I brought today and would leave for staff to share with you, 

if you wish. 

Prior to my tenure at the Sonoran Institute, I served as the Arizona State Land Commissioner. While there, along with the 

Sonoran Institute, we worked with the Grand Canyon chapter of 

the Sierra Club to negotiate a land exchange proposal that went to 

the voters of Arizona and was passed. In Arizona, State trust land and resource sales have earned $4.1 

billion—that is market value—over the trust’s 100-year history. On 

top of that, revenues from leases, rights of ways, and other temporary instruments earn tens of millions of additional dollars each 

year. And to give some perspective, last year, which was definitely 

not Arizona’s best economic year, $365 million flowed into the 

trust. 

If there is one thing I have learned throughout the course of my 

career, it is the importance of having land managed by agencies 

with the appropriate authority to do so. And what I mean by this 

is that each agency within the Federal Government is obviously 

governed by laws, rules, regulations, and policies that define the 

scope of activities and practices permissible on and for the lands 

they manage. the same is true at the State level. 

In an ideal world, each agency’s inventory of lands would benefit 

from the specific authority vested in the managing agency. However, the assignment of lands to agencies has not been and is not 

now determined by a design based in logic. To the contrary, the 

history of land management assignments has been very much on 

an ad hoc, parcel-by-parcel basis, which has created a most interesting and often illogical and inefficient jurisdictional patchwork 

across the West. 

Whether it was during my time working for trust for public land, 

or as the land commissioner, or now, I have watched a lot of opportunities fade and sometimes vanish, while land managers tried to 

find the discretion to manage land or resources in a way that honored them. 

In my opinion, the best response to the jurisdictional patchwork 

problem faced all across the West is that which has been presented 

to the subcommittee today, the basis of which is to get our public 

and State trust lands into the agencies in which they can be most 

effectively managed. By doing so, lands that have conservation 

13 

qualities can be managed for conservation; lands that have revenue-producing potential can be managed by agencies with a mandate to produce revenue. I cannot tell you the amount of man-hours 

that I suspect will be saved by this one proposed process. 

More importantly, though, is that places that are considered culturally sacred can be removed from peril once and for all. In Arizona, one prime example would be Adamsville, an archeological 

Mecca, which should be managed, perhaps, as a national park, 

rather than State trust land, where it theoretically is on the auction block any time an application is received to purchase or lease 

it. 

Likewise, places that are important habitat for threatened and 

endangered species, like cienega in Arizona, could remain permanently undisturbed in the hands of the BLM, whereas now they too 

are subject to the lease-and-sale mandates of the State Land Department. Places as notable even as the Grand Canyon, Walnut 

Canyon, and the Petrified Forest are all threatened by activities 

that can and, under law, really should be authorized by the State 

Land Department because of their revenue-producing capacity. The 

same can be said of lands near the Verde, San Pedro, Santa Cruz, 

and even Colorado Rivers. 

So, the question to me is this: If there is a safe and realistic alternative, wouldn’t it be better if we could remove them from jeopardy and continue to draw visitors from all continents to our beautiful Western States? It is unnerving to know that these assets, 

which should be permanently protected, enjoy but the flimsiest of 

safeguards, the lowly MOU or something akin to that. In many 

cases, it is not even that. In many cases, among land managers, it 

is really just a hand-shake and a promise to do the best we can. 

We have all seen that, I think, as land management agencies. 

In my view, this concept is worthy of pursuit. I believe the 

amended authorization could do much to serve the greater good. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Baier follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARIA BAIER, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SONORAN

INSTITUTE

Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva and Members: 

Thank you for the privilege of testifying before this subcommittee today about a 

legislative concept that has been referred to as ‘‘School Trust Lands Ownership 

Within Federal Conservation Areas.’’ 

For the record, my name is Maria Baier, and I am the CEO of the Sonoran Institute, which is a 501(C)(3) non-profit organization founded 22 years ago and 

headquartered in Tucson, Arizona, whose mission and vision is to inspire and enable 

community decisions and public policies that respect the land and people of western 

North America. 

Facing rapid change, communities in the West value their natural and cultural 

resources, which support resilient environmental and economic systems. The 

Sonoran Institute helps communities conserve and restore those resources and manage growth and change through collaboration, civil dialog, sound information, practical solutions and big-picture thinking. We have two offices in Arizona, and offices 

in Montana, Colorado and Mexicali, Mexico. 

The Sonoran Institute has been interested in land management issues since its 

inception, and we have produced a number of publications on the subject. I have 

brought some of those for your review. Most recently, we were pleased to have been 

a central party, along with the Grand Canyon Chapter of the Sierra Club, in promoting the passage of a statewide ballot measure that reinstated public-to-public 

land exchanges for the State Land Department. 

14 

Prior to my tenure at the Sonoran Institute, I served as the Arizona State Land 

Commissioner, and as such, was responsible for directing the State agency that 

manages Arizona’s 9.3 million acres of State Trust land. Under the New Mexico-Arizona Enabling Act and Arizona’s Constitution and statutes, the Land Commissioner 

has a fiduciary obligation to ensure those lands produce revenue for 13 different 

beneficiaries, the prime beneficiary being public schools, to which approximately 87 

percent of those lands belong. 

In Arizona, State Trust land and resource sales have earned $4.1 billion (market 

value) over the Trust’s 100-year history. On top of that, revenues from leases, permits, rights of way and other ‘‘temporary’’ instruments earn tens of millions of additional dollars each year. To give some perspective, last year, for example, which 

definitely was not Arizona’s best economic year, an impressive $365 million flowed 

into the Trust. 

Prior to my service as Land Commissioner, I was fortunate to have spent 10 years 

in the Governor’s Office as a senior policy advisor and to have had other rewarding 

jobs with public, private and non-profit entities—most of which, in one way or another, have been focused on land and natural resources. 

If there is one thing I have learned throughout the course of my career, it is the 

importance of having land managed by agencies with the appropriate authority to 

do so. What I mean by this is that each agency within the Federal Government is 

governed by laws, rules, regulations and policies that define the scope of activities 

and practices permissible on and for lands they manage. The same is true at the 

State level. In an ideal world, each agency’s inventory of lands would benefit from 

the specific authority vested in the managing agency. 

However, the assignment of land to agencies has not been, and is not now, determined by a design based in logic. To the contrary. The history of land management 

assignments has been very much on an ad hoc, parcel-by-parcel basis, which has 

created a most interesting and often illogical and inefficient jurisdictional patchwork 

across the West. 

Whether it was during my time working for the Trust for Public Land, or as the 

Land Commissioner, or now, at the Sonoran Institute, I have watched a great many 

opportunities fade and often vanish while land managers tried to find the discretion 

to manage land and/or resources in a way that honored them. 

I cannot think of an ‘‘unfinished business’’ box that would be more full than the 

one into which these opportunities would be dropped. And that is for at least two 

reasons: First, in the vast majority of situations, the nature and condition of the 

land and its resources have been in place since the earth was formed, and this being 

the case, there are few instances where ‘‘the problem takes care of itself.’’ In other 

words, discussions that began a century ago continue to this day. 

The second culprit of decade-long logjams is simply this: creativity and compromise by government agencies is too rarely encouraged and almost never authorized under law. Anything other than strict adherence to the letter of the law is intentionally prohibited, and that law generally substantially limits discretion.. There 

is, of course, a good motive for this, namely to prevent self-dealing and other types 

of corruption, However, in the pursuit to prevent corruption, we often lose discretionary provisions that might have fostered greater creativity and compromise. 

So, day after day, month after month, year after year, decade after decade, land 

managers meet and discuss virtually the same issues on the same lands and about 

the same resources. Their best resolution tool to date seems to be the Memorandum 

of Understanding, or something like it, but, as its name suggests, it is generally 

quite limited in time, scope and enforcement. 

If I had a nickel for every time I was at a meeting among land managers from 

various agencies and heard the phrase, ‘‘I would do that if I could,’’ I could have 

traveled to DC on my own jet. 

But there must be airtight laws on how we manage assets of the public trust, including land and natural resources. Seeking additional discretion in laws on a piecemeal basis will not accomplish much, and seeking it on a broader basis could result 

in all manner of unintended consequences. 

In my opinion, the best response to the jurisdictional patchwork problem faced all 

across the West is that which has been presented to this subcommittee today, the 

basis of which is to get our public and State Trust lands into the agencies in which 

they can be most effectively managed. 

By doing so, lands that have conservation qualities can be managed for conservation. Lands that have revenue-producing potential can be managed by agencies with 

a mandate to produce revenue. I cannot tell you the amount of man hours that will 

be saved by this one proposed process. 

More important, though, is that places that are considered culturally sacred can 

be plucked from peril once and for all. In Arizona, one prime example would be 

15 

Adamsville, an archeological mecca, which should be managed as a National Park, 

rather than State Trust land, where it is theoretically on the auction block anytime 

an application is received to buy it. Likewise, places that are important habitat for 

threatened and endangered species, like Cienega in Arizona, could remain permanently undisturbed in the hands of the BLM, whereas now, they, too, are subject 

to the lease and sale mandates of the State Land Department. 

Places as notable as the Grand Canyon, Walnut Canyon, and the Petrified Forest 

are all threatened by activities that can, and, under law, really should be, authorized by the State Land Department because they bring in money. The same can easily be said of the Verde, San Pedro, Santa Cruz and even Colorado Rivers. 

So the question is this: If there is a safe and realistic alternative, why would we 

want to continue to jeopardize the integrity of any of the spectacular national monuments or conservation areas that grace our states and draw visitors from all continents? 

It is unnerving to know that these assets, which should be permanently protected, 

enjoy but the flimsiest of safeguards, the lowly MOU. And in many cases, not even 

that. Only a handshake and a promise to ‘‘do the best we can.’’ 

Meanwhile, the earnest, devoted and talented staffs within our State land management agencies are, on a daily basis, stuck between a rock and a hard place. 

When they receive a purchase or lease application for a site in or near a conservation-eligible place, they must choose between litigation brought by those who seek 

to protect the pristine asset while forego the revenue generation mandate of the 

trust, and those who seek to compromise the asset and adhere to money-making 

mandate. I cannot overstate how prevalent this dilemma is. 

But just to be clear, in nearly every case, the law and the courts instruct State 

land departments to do the latter. That is why each special place in which there 

are State Trust land inholdings or State Trust land on the perimeter, whether in 

or out of a federally designated area, remains in jeopardy. 

In my view, this concept is worthy of pursuit. With proper legislative drafting, the 

risks can be limited to those that are reasonable. Of those issues that remain under 

debate with which I am familiar, there would appear to be ample room for constructive compromise. 

I believe this amended authorization could do much to serve the greater good. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. I appreciate all of you being here and 

the testimony that you have given. We will now open this up to 

questions from members of the committee. Mrs. Lummis. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I am delighted to 

see the members of this panel today. I share some backgrounds 

with the gentlewomen on this panel. I was our State Land Director 

for a period of time. And I want to thank Ms. Opp for being the 

President of the Western State Land Commissioners. That is a fine 

organization. 

I also served on numerous boards with Luther Propst, who is, of 

course, your predecessor at Sonoran. And we go way back, as well, 

have many, many common interests and ideas. And I am so delighted to see all of you here today to discuss this topic. 

Wyoming has, of course, had a great deal of experience with the 

frustrations of trying to provide to the Federal Government 

inholdings in Grand Teton National Park, which are State lands. 

The ability to derive revenue from those lands, which are of just 

almost obscene financial value, has been minuscule. And yet, our 

effort to try to exchange two sections of State school trust lands 

with the Federal Government, or have the Federal Government 

buy them, has been a multi-decade process that is still not complete. And the appraisals become stale after a period of time. 

And then, as the foot-dragging goes on and on, we are unable to 

provide to the Federal Government the inholdings for Grand Teton 

National Park, and, at the same time, provide, as the panel pointed 

out, revenue for the schoolchildren of Wyoming. So, I am very inVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:07 Oct 10, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\04 PUBLIC LANDS & ENV\04SE10 1ST SESS\9-10-13 P\82947.TXT DARLEN
16 

trigued and pleased by the plan and the proposed land exchanges 

that you are presenting. 

Questions. Ms. Opp, under the Western State Land Commissioner’s proposal, what is the role of NEPA, as applied to both the 

decision of the State to divest, and the decision of the State to select lands? 

Ms. OPP. Mr. Chairman, Congresswoman, members of the subcommittee, we are not denying that there is a NEPA process, and 

that the Federal Government would want and desire to perform 

that. One of the things that could be achieved through the process, 

the Secretary of the Interior does not have to advance any alternative that would not be in the best interest of the Federal Government. So, as a State makes a selection, if it is deemed not in the 

best interest of the Federal Government, it doesn’t have to advance. 

Also, in the NEPA process, it can sort of be a green light/red 

light. It is either yes, it is something that is acceptable, and that 

alternative should be examined, or no, it shouldn’t, rather than incorporating what typically is a NEPA process, a variety of alternatives. You could potentially streamline that in the NEPA process, just associated with this particular proposal. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. And with your proposal, does it apply to national 

parks, national forests, areas of critical environmental concern, national recreation areas? What is the scope of Federal land designations which have State inholdings that would be available for the 

exchange? 

Ms. OPP. Mr. Chairman, Congresswoman, members of the subcommittee, certainly we would propose, as States, to get out of 

those wilderness designations or national parks. We would not be 

selecting other pieces as part of this in lieu selection that would be 

included in those still. So we would be going to parcels on the in 

lieu selection as States that are from the unappropriated BLM 

ownership, if that answers your question. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. I also want the mirror image answer to that question. Of the lands that you, the State land commissioners, would 

be designating that you wanted to trade because they are trapped 

in Federal designations, would that include Forest Service, national 

forests, BLM lands? 

If it is—let’s say they are not managed for multiple use. Is it 

anything that is not managed for multiple use that would be available for you to exchange to the Federal Government if it is trapped 

in a non-multiple-use Federal designation? 

Ms. OPP. Mr. Chairman, Congresswoman, members of the subcommittee, we would be looking at anything—we would be looking 

at deeding back to the Federal Government anything that is within 

a wilderness designation, roadless. At this point, you know, it 

would be national forests, as well. But, you know, perhaps we can 

have further discussion about that. Anything that basically is constrictive to our ability to manage. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Yes, excellent. You know, the broader, the better, 

Mr. Chairman, from this perspective of the States. Because, as you 

know, the Federal Government finds ways to limit States’ activities 

on their own land, as long as it is trapped in a Federal designation 

of any kind. 

17 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Great hearing. I yield back. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. I am glad you were referring to policy 

in ‘‘broader, the better.’’ I thought you were referring to the size of 

my suit here. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Grijalva, do you have questions? 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Maybe one basic 

question for all the panelists. The proposal that is being talked 

about and that is reflected in your written testimony is based on 

the idea that the Federal Government has a means to address land 

exchanges through the existing in lieu concept. However, both 

Western States Land Commissioners Association and the Children’s Land Alliance have criticized in lieu process when addressing original school trust and land grants. 

We are asking Congress—you are asking Congress—to endorse 

and expand a concept you have all been critical of, to some extent, 

and in some cases litigated over. Given that your proposal makes 

the in lieu process better for stranded parcels, is this the national 

interest determination that is being discussed as part of a proposal? Is it the expedited or NEPA waivers that makes it better for 

those stranded parcels? Is it the presumption—I think it was—and 

one of them was planned adequacy? 

This isn’t just keeping—applying existing authority to new lands, 

it is expanding authority. And I think we have to be clear of that. 

And we need to really understand what that expansion means. 

So, given that long-winded question, those three points, if any— 

if all the panelists would comment briefly, I would appreciate it 

very much. 

Ms. OPP. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Grijalva, and members of the committee, I think there is a variety of ways to approach the concept. Many States, the vast majority of States, have 

resolved their original in lieu selections. Some States still do have 

some outstanding. And a recent re-constitution of an MOU with the 

BLM, we believe, will help resolve those situations. 

The key to this process is it is just a—it is another tool, besides 

purchase and besides the existing exchange process. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. OK. 

Ms. OPP. We believe it is in the best interest of the Nation for 

both our land bases to be reconciled to their mission, such that the 

Federal Government can—— 

Mr. GRIJALVA. But specifically the national interest concept, 

would you say that expands the authority? 

Ms. OPP. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I would say 

that it, in my experience, doesn’t expand the authority in the national interest. It is still in the national interest now for land exchanges or purchases to happen. So I wouldn’t say it’s an expansion, it’s simply another tool that can be used. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. An appearance for the first time of that tool. 

Ms. OPP. Say that again, please, sir. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. The tool, national interest tool, appears now for 

the first time in this kind of exchange process as a defined part of 

any legislation. 

18 

Ms. OPP. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, it is a 

new tool to resolving the inholdings trapped in conservation areas. 

That is a true statement. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I think those three 

points that I tried to make with a question, and I appreciate the 

response from the one witness, I think are pertinent for further 

discussions, I think are essential to clarify and define those for further discussion. And with that, I yield back, I have no further questions. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. Mrs. Lummis, do you have other questions you wanted to ask? 

Mrs. LUMMIS. I do, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BISHOP. Please. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Thank you. Again, for Ms. Opp, as I understand 

it under your proposal, NEPA does not apply to the divestiture. 

But—so the Federal Government gets its land immediately, but the 

States will still have to go through a process in order to select their 

lands. Do I understand the proposal correctly? 

Ms. OPP. Mr. Chairman, Congresswoman, members of the subcommittee, the State itself would not perform NEPA. If the Federal 

agency, you know, needed to perform NEPA, then on the divestiture, then—from Federal lands, then they would do that. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. OK. 

Ms. OPP. As part of the process. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. What is a reasonable amount of time for the States 

to be able to select other BLM land of equal value, and for that 

land to be valued? 

Ms. OPP. Mr. Chairman, Congresswoman, members of the subcommittee, we believe that valuations could be on appraised value. 

But in some cases, where you have low-value lands, there are a variety of means to value that land. And so there are ways to get at 

that. 

We would like to see something on the order of 12 to 18 months, 

in terms of resolution, once the deed went back to the Federal Government, that the State received its replacement lands. We believe 

that certainly is doable with dialog in the beginning, to make sure 

that the lands we are talking about are reasonable for both entities. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Ms. Baier, might I ask you the same question? I 

want to—I would—I am interested in your opinion about what is 

a reasonable amount of time for these exchanges to occur, as well 

as your assessment of an appropriate valuation process. 

Ms. BAIER. Thank you, Congresswoman. Chairman, Congresswoman, thank you. It is interesting in Arizona, because we negotiated several years ago—when I was on the Governor’s staff, actually, with Secretary Babbitt, we actually began the negotiation for 

a fairly sizable land exchange that included lots of different Federal lands and lots of different State trust lands. So I know in Arizona it wouldn’t take very long for us to identify—I am quite sure 

it wouldn’t take very long for us to identify those lands. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Were those transactions completed? 

Ms. BAIER. No, they were not. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. And were—— 

19 

Ms. BAIER. Which is part of the reason we are here today, I 

think, you know. It really is a very cumbersome process for—— 

Mrs. LUMMIS. It is cumbersome. Why weren’t they completed? 

Ms. BAIER. You know, we identified them, and they got—I think 

they got held up in the appraisal process. It was the appraisal process that held it up. It was even identifying an appraiser that people 

felt could be objective, you know, on both sides. And then the 

length of time and, really, the cost of the appraisals, too, because 

they can be quite costly. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Yes. 

Ms. BAIER. I think in terms of my real view of this—because I 

have not visited with each State or the organizations that may 

have an interest in this, but I think the outline that Kathy provided is probably reasonable. I think it is my—what I think might 

be a good idea is to pull some States in, and to pull some Federal 

agencies in, and have them discuss what a reasonable timeline 

would be, given the constraints on the resources. 

You know, there is only limited staff that can be devoted to these 

on the Federal side and on the State side. So, I mean, I think the 

best thing is to come up with a timeline that is—can actually be 

reasonable for State and Federal agencies. I think Kathy’s is probably reasonable. But I think it is a—you know, as I understand it, 

there is not a provision, a timeline that has been set in stone in 

any—in legislation. And I think the whole idea is to have this be 

a very functional authorization. And so I think it is worth doing 

that and finding out what a realistic timeline is. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. The Sonoran Institute, even predating your taking 

the leadership reigns, was interested in State lands issues and 

these kinds of matters. Was it driven more from a—is it driven 

more from the conservation perspective, the K through 12 funding 

perspective, or both? 

Ms. BAIER. Well, we are a conservation organization. So our interest is primarily the conservation component, trying to get land 

into hands of agencies that can manage it for conservation. But we 

take very seriously the mandate of the trust—obviously, you know, 

particularly given my history—and respect that. 

But it is really—the two are really not separate. I mean the 

whole reason that something like this is needed is so that there 

isn’t that tension, and so that lands that can—should be in the 

hands of the State Land Department and should be producing revenue—can go over there, and lands that should be undisturbed can 

go into management agencies that can leave it undisturbed. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Quick yes or no? Thank you, sir. 

Does the Sonoran Institute support the Western State Land 

Commissioner proposal? 

Ms. BAIER. Mr. Chairman, Congresswoman, the—we have not 

seen final language. So the—we support the concept—— 

Mrs. LUMMIS. OK. 

Ms. BAIER [continuing]. That has been shared with us. Thank 

you. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Thank you all. Thanks, panel. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. Mr. McClintock, do you have any questions for this—these witnesses? 

20 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. I will be happy to yield to my colleague, Mrs. 

Lummis. 

Mr. BISHOP. Go ahead. That is OK, thanks. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Opp, can you explain to people who may be concerned about the types of lands that 

States would be interested in acquiring in exchange for the lands 

they would be giving up, what those might be? 

Ms. OPP. Mr. Chairman, Congresswoman, members of the subcommittee, our primary interest is always going to be what is— 

what will be best for our trust in management. Sometimes it is acquiring ownership next to an existing parcel, so that we are able 

to efficiently manage a larger block of resources. Certainly when 

you look at the BLM ownership in Idaho, it is largely range land. 

So that is going to be our primary motivation. 

In other States it may be—we don’t have a lot of oil and gas in 

Idaho; some States do, so they would be looking potentially at that. 

But, of course, our concept would be anything that is producing for 

the Federal Government would be off-limits. We are not looking to 

erode any Federal earnings potential. 

So, we would be looking at things that would best mesh with 

other ownership patterns that we have, other earning asset types 

that we are familiar with managing, anything that is going to, you 

know, promote the best earnings for our trust fund. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Does any of the panel know whether the Forest 

Service has a disposal list, as does the BLM? The BLM has a list 

of properties that they can’t manage and would like to divest themselves of. Does the Forest Service have a similar list, does anyone 

know? 

Ms. OPP. Mr. Chairman, Congresswoman, members of the subcommittee, I am not aware of a disposal list at the Forest Service 

level. I do know that the BLM has resource management plans. 

This proposal would not contemplate that a property to be acquired 

had to be on a disposal list. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Right, right. 

Ms. OPP. It is simply that it would be available if it was unappropriated or not in a national or roadless area, or those major conservation criteria. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. OK. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I yield back. I realize you have been very indulgent. Thank you. 

Mr. BISHOP. Now, Mr. McClintock, we appreciate you yielding 

back your time here. I am assuming you do, as well, right? OK. 

Let me ask just one—perhaps one final question. Ms. Baier, have 

you discussed this in lieu selection proposal with any Federal land 

managers? 

Ms. BAIER. Mr. Chairman, I feel very fortunate that I have two 

former Federal land managers on our board of directors: Suzanne 

Lewis, who was with the Park Service for a number of years; and 

then Henri Bisson, who was with the BLM, and I think had been 

the Acting State Director for Utah, and also the State Director for 

California. 

And I checked in with my entire board of directors before agreeing to testify here today, and they were all very supportive, and 

particularly the two Federal land managers, who have seen the 

benefits, both on the part of the Park Service and the part of the 

21 

BLM, of exchanges in the past. And so, I have, and they wholeheartedly supported the testimony today. Thank you. 

Mr. BISHOP. Do—would any of you like to give one final statement as to the concept of appraisals as being a problem? Appraisals, as we all know, are very subjective. And I have seen them 

being—I mean you might as well use a Ouija board and some tarot 

cards to come up with a proper appraisal. Do any of you have examples or suggestions of how the appraisal process is problematic? 

And you don’t have to, but if there is anything you would like to 

say in conclusion, I would appreciate it. 

Ms. BAIER. Mr. Chairman, what I would like to say is just that 

I—what I think, both from the State side and from the Federal 

side, is that there ought not to be a prohibition on having an appraisal process on these relinquishments. But in some cases, what 

we have—what at least I have learned, in my experience, in some 

cases the appraisal takes time and money and resources that would 

prevent a very wise exchange from occurring. 

And so, I guess what I would say is I am not sure that they need 

to be prohibited where they would be—where they could be helpful. 

But I think in many cases, you know, to find reasonable values on 

both sides would work well. 

And I think, given the fact that the State Land Department, the 

State land commissioners, our trustees—and they are held to a 

very high legal obligation, and the Secretary of the Interior is also 

held to a very high legal obligation to protect the public trust—I 

think that the appraisal process in some cases may be too burdensome. 

And I think there is even language that came from the Supreme 

Court that allows some discretion in the appraisal process on these 

relinquishment processes. That would be my thought. 

Ms. OPP. Mr. Chairman, I would just add that it is often not so 

much the appraisal process, in our experience, as much as the level 

and number of internal reviews that happen after the appraisals 

are completed. We have seen, in a number of cases in land exchanges in our State, in Idaho, needing to go through two cycles 

of appraisals because they grow stale, depending on when they are 

done in the process. 

And as Ms. Baier pointed out, when they don’t—when they no 

longer meet the standards of professional appraisal due to, say, 

being 12 months old or less, depending on market conditions, and 

then you are asking the beneficiaries to go through and pay for another round, which can be hundreds of thousands of dollars, you 

start to question the utility of it when you have professional land 

managers on both sides and a lot of data that could be used to 

value that. 

So, maybe it is how you approach giving latitude, depending on 

the number of parcels and the values, and also the review cycles 

that come along with it that could help speed the process. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. I appreciate all those answers and the 

questions that have been given. 

If there are no other questions, I want to thank the witnesses 

profusely for your effort and time to be here, and the testimony 

that you have given. 

22 

Members of the subcommittee may have additional questions. 

They will submit to you in writing if they do. We would ask for 

your responses to be presented in writing. The record will be open 

for 10 days to receive the questions or additional responses. 

If there is no further business, without objection—once again, 

great appreciation to all of you who have attended and participated 

today—this subcommittee is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Addional Material Submitted for the Record] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARY M. ABRAMS, PH.D., DIRECTOR, OREGON

DEPARTMENT OF STATE LANDS

I am Mary Abrams, Director of the Oregon Department of State Lands. I want 

to thank the subcommittee for the opportunity to testify today. 

I’m here today representing my agency as well as the Western States Land Commissioners Association. Oregon is 1 of 23 member States in the organization. My 

purpose today is to provide a state-specific example of the background, need, and 

solution to a problem that affects all Western States. 

OREGON DEPARTMENT OF STATE LANDS

The Department of State Lands is the administrative agency of the State Land 

Board, Oregon’s oldest public board. It was established at statehood by the 1859 Oregon Constitution to oversee ‘‘school lands’’ granted by the Federal Government. 

Throughout its history, the Governor has chaired the board, and the two other members have been the Secretary of State and the State Treasurer. 

As settlers came West in the 1850s and beyond, Oregon needed to educate emigrant children and those born in our new State. Recognizing this, the U.S. Government granted our land-rich, cash-poor State sections 16 and 36 of each township to 

generate money for schools. 

Oregon’s original land grant totaled about 3.4 million acres. Today, only a fifth 

of that acreage (about 770,000 acres) remains. These Trust Lands have a very specific purpose that differentiates them from other public lands managed for a variety 

of uses: they are solely dedicated to making money for Oregon’s schoolchildren. 

The Land Board manages its lands for long-term, multi-generational support of 

public education. Revenues from these lands are deposited in the Common School 

Fund, a trust fund for schools. 

The estimated total market value of Oregon’s school Trust Lands is between $500 

and $600 million. Oregon’s Trust Lands revenues are deposited into the Common 

School Fund. In fiscal year 2012, gross receipts totaled over $13 million. 

FUNDING SCHOOLS

The total market value of the fund is now about $1.1 billion. All public school districts in Oregon receive two distributions a year from the fund’s interest earnings. 

The average annual distribution since 2008 has been about $50 million. Common 

School Fund distributions are a small but important part of Oregon’s school funding. 

These funds support the equivalent of 48 full-time teachers in a large district such 

as Portland, and 3 full-time teachers in a small coastal community. In other words, 

the money matters. 

Oregon’s goal has been to steadily increase our funding for schools through more 

strategic land management planning over time. This includes implementing land exchanges and sales to maximize our high-revenue producing lands while divesting of 

our non-producing lands. 

MAXIMIZING REVENUE GENERATION

Revenue from Common School Fund lands over time has included both annual receipts from land management operations (timber harvest receipts and grazing leases 

for example) as well as funds from sales of some land assets. However, because of 

the patchwork nature of the original land grant to Oregon (16th and 36th sections), 

there have always been management challenges with our Trust Lands. 

Not all the granted sections were high value, and the dispersed nature of the 

holdings caused inefficiencies as it is generally easier to manage contiguous blocks 

23 

of land with similar management goals than it is to manage small, non-consolidated 

parcels. 

Because of these constraints, land sales and exchanges have been an important 

part of managing our real estate portfolio to maximize school revenue. We have divested of or exchanged difficult-to-manage lands and reinvested in lands with higher 

revenue potential. Historically, consolidation occurred on forestlands; and more recently, land acquisitions have been commercial properties. 

WHY DOES THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MATTER

First and foremost, Federal lands are our biggest neighboring land owners. Most 

of Oregon’s remaining Trust Lands are interspersed with Federal lands (Bureau of 

Land Management and U.S. Forest Service) which increasingly have fundamentally 

different management goals than those of State Trust Lands. Federal land management has evolved over time from the early days of open range to designation of 

areas for special land uses (parks, scenic areas, wilderness areas, etc.) including an 

increased emphasis on multiple-use management. These shifts have often left state 

Trust Lands isolated within larger Federal holdings with dramatically different 

management objectives. 

The modern era of Federal land management has also increased the complexity 

of Federal land exchanges that historically were a tool to resolve some of the management challenges between State and Federal lands. Therefore, Congressional and 

administrative decisions that affect Federal land management do affect our ability 

to maximize revenue for schools, particularly when they reduce options for Trust 

Land portfolio management. 

Such Federal decisions can leave state lands stranded within Federal designations, limiting effective management of these trust assets for revenue generation. It 

also decreases their value for selling or trading, and for almost any type of development or other use. 

In Oregon we have just less than 10,000 acres that are surrounded by Federal lands with different management objectives. These lands are valued at roughly $8 

million, and their isolation within and dependence on Federal land decisions greatly 

reduces their value. 

State Trust Lands surrounded by Federal designations can be encumbered by 

Federal threatened and endangered species policies, access constraints, unintended 

consequences of Federal fire protection policies, and potentially other Federal actions that limit opportunities for generating revenues. Because of these encumbrances on our Federal neighbors, State Trust Lands trapped within Federal conservation designations are often virtually worthless to the State’s school trust, depriving current and future generations of school children of valuable revenues to 

support public education. 

THE SOLUTION

As we in the Western States see it, the best remedy to this situation is to either 

facilitate an exchange of these landlocked State parcels for other Federal lands, or 

sell our trust assets to the land-holding Federal agency. However, normal Federal 

land exchange and sale procedures are lengthy, complex administrative processes 

that require money and time—both substantial drains on States’ ability to manage 

their Trust Lands. The scarcity of Federal funds for land acquisition adds to the uncertainty and low likelihood of success in traditional land sales and exchanges with 

Federal land management agencies. 

So the Western States would like to propose a different approach. 

IN LIEU SELECTION PROCESS AND A NEW TOOL

At statehood, some of the 16th and 36th sections were already owned and therefore unavailable. For these sections, States were given ‘‘in lieu selection’’ credits, allowing States to select other available Federal parcels in lieu of the original sections. 

States have largely exhausted those credits since statehood but some are still outstanding. Oregon is still working with the BLM to finalize exchanges for our last 

1,600 acres of credits. The process to secure ‘‘in-lieu lands’’ has been lengthy, but 

it does work. 

The Western States Land Commissioners Association has developed a proposal 

based on this in-lieu selection model to provide a solution to Trust Land parcels that 

are landlocked by Federal lands. The proposal would allow State land managers to 

relinquish title to lands trapped within Federal conservation areas in exchange for 

BLM lands not already protected as a Federal conservation area, and that have not 

been otherwise appropriated. 

24 

The model provides a workable methodology for removing Trust Lands from Federal conservation areas. This fulfills the States’ funding mandate for public education and provides Federal land managers with conservation areas that are largely 

clear of inholdings. 

The Western States proposal is simple and elegant—and is based on an existing 

process. It’s a win-win for both the Federal Government and States: 

• It provides a mechanism for States to divest Trust Lands whose management 

and value are affected by their landlocked position within Federal lands. 

• It allows Federal land managers to more effectively manage their lands. 

• It provides a viable option for removing State Trust Lands from the political 

debates surrounding Congressional conservation area creations. 

• It accomplishes all of this using fewer resources—both State and Federal— 

to process exchanges than typical Federal land exchanges or purchases. 

The WSLCA proposal will help Oregon better meet its constitutional mandate for 

school Trust Lands by increasing management flexibility on almost 10,000 acres of 

such lands. Land assets worth $8 million can be ‘‘unlocked’’ to generate greater revenues for Oregon’s school children into the future. 

In summary, because of these advantages, I encourage you to consider any legislation that supports this proposal. It will help Western States, such as Oregon, but 

also the rest of the Nation through increased government efficiencies at the State 

and Federal levels. 

Thank you. 

LETTER SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY JAMES D. OGSBURY

WESTERN GOVERNORS’ ASSOCIATION, 

DENVER, CO 80202, 

JULY 17, 2013. 

The Honorable ROB BISHOP, Chairman, 

Subcommittee on Public Lands 

and Environmental Regulation, 

Committee on Natural Resources, 

U.S. House of Representatives, 

Washington, DC 20515. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN BISHOP: 

Attached please find a resolution, recently adopted by Western Governors, supporting efforts to simplify Federal-State land exchanges. On behalf of the Western 

Governors’ Association (WGA), I respectfully request that the document be included 

in the record of the Friday, July 19, 2013 hearing on various public lands bills 

scheduled for the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation. 

The Governors’ resolution supports reauthorization of the Federal Lands Transfer 

Facilitation Act (FLTFA). H.R. 2068, sponsored by Representative Lummis, would 

reauthorize FLTFA, and WGA commends her for introducing this important legislation. 

The Governors also support other efforts to reform Federal-State land exchange 

processes. WGA is working with the Western States Land Commissioners’ Association, for example, on its proposed legislation to solve part of the land tenure problems based on a process known as ‘‘in lieu’’ selections. WGA also supports Federal 

legislation to amend the Federal Lands Policy and Management Act to: 

• Index the existing $150,000 threshold for using an expedited exchange process for inflation (the $150,000 threshold was adopted in 1986); 

• Allow use of a statement of value to replace the appraisal process in FederalState exchanges of similar rural lands; and 

• Presume any agreed-upon Federal-state land exchange as in the public interest unless clearly countervailing factors are present (Federal-private exchanges are not included in this presumption). 

With appreciation for your leadership and best wishes for continued success, I am 

Respectfully, 

JAMES D. OGSBURY, 

Executive Director. 

25 

WESTERN GOVERNORS’ ASSOCIATION POLICY RESOLUTION 13–01 

Federal-State Land Exchanges and Purchases 

A. BACKGROUND

1. Congress granted lands to States as they were admitted into union to be held 

in trust for support of public schools. Over time, the Federal Government has 

created conservation areas such as national monuments, wildlife refuges and 

wilderness study areas on public lands that surround or affect many of these 

trust lands. tribal reservations and military withdrawals have also created state 

enclaves within Federal landholdings. 

2. Federal and State land managers, land users, the environmental community 

and the public all agree that the ‘‘checkerboard’’ land ownership pattern prevailing in much of the West is a major hindrance to effective and ecologically 

sound management of both Federal and State lands. 

3. Currently, there are three methods of resolving the checkerboard land tenure 

issue in the West: (1) Land exchanges under existing legislation, such as Federal Lands Policy and Management Act (FLPMA); (2) the direct Federal purchase of non-Federal lands within Federal management areas under Federal 

Lands Transfer Facilitation Act (FLTFA); and (3) individual acts of Congress. 

However, all three are lengthy, expensive, and inefficient. 

4. Federal land exchanges—whether with States or private interests—are conducted under the FLPMA. FLPMA requires that land exchanges be of equal 

value as determined by appraisal and that the public interest is ‘‘well served 

by making [the land] exchange.’’ The complex regulatory requirements associated with FLPMA exchanges create unintentional barriers to Federal-state land 

exchanges. 

5. Generally, the estimated values of lands proposed for exchange are established 

through appraisals, which must be done in accordance with Federal standards 

and other requirements. If the Federal land value is estimated to be less than 

$150,000, an appraiser’s statement of value (a professional assessment that is 

based on more limited information than is included in a full appraisal) can be 

used. 

6. The FLTFA allows the Department of the Interior agencies and the Forest Service to use the proceeds from sales of surplus Federal lands to acquire inholdings 

in national parks, national wildlife refuges, national forests and other designated areas, including the National Landscape Conservation System. FLTFA 

was passed in 2000 with a 10-year sunset. The act was reauthorized for 1 year 

in 2010, but was not extended at the July 2011 expiration. 

7. The Western States Land Commissioners’ Association (WSLCA) has drafted proposed legislation to solve part of the land tenure problems based on a process 

known as ‘‘in lieu’’ selections. In lieu selections are established by 43 U.S.C. 

851–852 and allow western land grant States to select Federal lands in lieu of 

land originally granted to the States that became unavailable due to preexisting 

conveyances or Federal special purpose designations. Under the WSLCA proposal, States would have the right to relinquish State trust lands within Federal conservation designations to the United States, and select replacements 

lands from unappropriated Federal public lands within the states. 

B. GOVERNORS’ POLICY POSITION

1. To improve management of both Federal and State lands in areas where there 

is checker-boarded ownership or State lands are completely captive within the 

boundaries of a Federal management area, Western Governors call on Congress 

to simplify and expedite the Federal-State land exchange and sale process. 

2. The Governors request Congress amend the FLPMA to add language to: 

• Index the existing $150,000 threshold for using an expedited exchange process for inflation since the $150,000 threshold was adopted in 1986; 

• Allow use of a statement of value to replace the appraisal process in FederalState exchanges of similar rural lands; and 

• Presume any agreed Federal-State land exchange as in public interest unless 

clearly countervailing factors are present (Federal-private exchanges are not 

included in this presumption). 

26 

3. The Governors request that Congress reauthorize the FLTFA with priority to be 

given to acquisition of State inholdings. 

4. The Governors encourage Congress to introduce and pass legislation that incorporates the proposed Federal-State land selection improvements proposed by 

the WSLCA. 

C. GOVERNORS’ MANAGEMENT DIRECTIVE

1. The Governors direct the WGA staff, where appropriate, to work with Congressional committees of jurisdiction and the executive branch to achieve the objectives of this resolution including funding, subject to the appropriation process, 

based on a prioritization of needs. 

2. Furthermore, the Governors direct WGA staff to develop, as appropriate and 

timely, detailed annual work plans to advance the policy positions and goals 

contained in this resolution. Those work plans shall be presented to, and approved by, western Governors prior to implementation. WGA staff shall keep 

the Governors informed, on a regular basis, of their progress in implementing 

approved annual work plans. 

Æ