Protecting public lands has become the rallying call this year for groups and individuals across the political spectrum. In June, when Utah’s Sen. Mike Lee proposed selling three million acres of federal lands, the outcry was overwhelming. The proposal was loose in its oversight, not designating the specific parcels of land. This detail was the match to ignite protests against any sale or transfer of federal lands.
In fear of federal public lands being sold off to the highest bidder, a constitutional amendment was presented in early August by Idaho state Sen. Ben Adams, prohibiting the sale of all future public lands. The proposed amendment reads: “…all other lands granted to or acquired by the state by or from the general government shall be held in a separate trust as public lands of the state. The trust shall remain inviolable and intact for this and future generations. Such lands shall not be sold. Such lands may be exchanged, except with lands granted, exchanged, purchased, or otherwise acquired…“
The proposed constitutional amendment addresses two competing concerns in the public lands debate. Supporters of a land transfer recognize that the federal government is overwhelmed with western acreage and is a poor manager of public lands.
Those opposed to transferring federal land back to Idaho fear that the state’s constitutional directive to manage lands to maximize financial return will incentivize Idaho to sell off any public lands acquired from the federal government.
The federal government’s history as a manager of public lands is fraught with poor performance. In the West, over half of our states are owned by the federal government, whereas in eastern states, the federal government owns less than 5%, and often less than 1-2%. As U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins said when asked about Mike Lee’s proposal, “Half of the land in the West is owned by the federal government. Is that really the right solution for the American people?”
Much of the land in the western states is federally owned, with 96% of this land managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Forest Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Park Service, or the Department of Defense. The BLM is the largest federal land manager, with 99% of BLM land concentrated in the 11 contiguous western states and Alaska. For example, 62% of the land in Idaho is owned by the federal government. This is the third-highest percentage in the country. The national average is 27%.
This inundation of federal acreage in western lands has led to poor management of fuels, pests, and diseases. Staffing shortages, existing before President Donald Trump’s second administration, have resulted in wildfires raging out of control on federal land. Idaho’s Gov. Brad Little said, “For too long, millions of acres of national forests in Idaho have remained totally untouched, creating a tinderbox of fuel that threatens communities, air quality, and the environment.”
Additionally, projects like the finally canceled Lava Ridge wind farm will continue to be unfairly shoved into the western states by Washington, D.C. landlords. Western states should be able to have a say in how public lands are managed and utilized within their borders.
But even with the federal government’s bad management and heavy-handedness, groups are still opposed to the transfer of public lands to the states, fearing public lands will be sold to the highest bidder.
Section 8 of Idaho’s constitution mandates the Idaho State Board of Land Commissioners to manage Idaho state lands “in such manner as will secure the maximum long term financial return to the institution to which granted or to the state if not specifically granted; provided, that no state lands shall be sold for less than the appraised price.”
Idaho hasn’t been in the practice of auctioning off state land indiscriminately. The state acquired 54,000 acres of timber lands in the past nine years, and only sold 324 acres. This ensured that almost 97% of state lands remain open to the public. Should federal land be returned to the state, Idaho would be under scrutiny to maintain this same type of discipline.
In regard to the proposed constitutional amendment, Idaho state Sen. Ben Adams said, “I think it changes the discussion. Instead of it being, ‘We have all of this land and we should sell it off.’ The sell-off needs to be off the table and instead ask, ‘Who’s going to manage it and who’s going to benefit?’ And I think the answer to that is the state should manage as much as we can actually manage and the land should benefit the people.”
The proposal has several hurdles to be adopted. First, the amendment must receive a two-thirds vote from the state legislature and then be placed on the ballot in November 2026 and receive a simple majority to be adopted.
In the upcoming public lands debate in the Idaho session, the state legislature needs to discuss whether all federal land should be off the table. In Idaho, where 17% of the land is managed by the BLM and of that 80% is unappropriated (meaning no intended purpose), there are acres that warrant the question, can a small percentage of land often dominated by tumbleweeds be transformed into affordable housing?
For example, a recent proposal by the American Enterprise Institute advocates for auctioning off 0.3% (850 square miles) of BLM land to build 3 million family-sized homes.
This already falls within the BLM mandate. “The BLM Act authorizes the Secretary of Interior to auction off land at market value directly to the private sector, when ‘disposal of such tract‘ will serve important public objectives, including but not limited to, expansion of communities and economic development.” Idaho’s housing shortage and highest home prices in the nation would be aided by this proposal.
The public lands discussion needs to address the fact that the federal government is a poor steward and that a protected transfer back to the state is in Idaho’s best interest. It is important to remember that land will still be public whether it is federal or state-owned. As the legislature considers new constitutional protections for public lands, future flexibility to meet the growing affordable housing needs of Idahoans should also be considered.
Madi Clark is a Senior Policy Analyst for the Mountain States Policy Center, an independent research organization based in Idaho, Montana, Eastern Washington and Wyoming. Online at mountainstatespolicy.org.
