Crapo defends vote on lands measure

Defending a vote last week that could lead federal land to be transferred to state and local governments, U.S. Sen. Mike Crapo said Tuesday that Westerners got a raw deal when they had to give up most of the property within their borders at statehood.

"I have always felt that states west of the Mississippi were not treated fairly, or fairly with the states who received the lands within their borders, mostly east of the Mississippi," he said.

Crapo and his seatmate, U.S. Sen. Jim Risch, both Republicans, voted in favor of a budget resolution amendment offered by Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, that paves the way for future legislation that would transfer federal land to state and local governments. The resolution passed the Senate Friday on a 51-49 vote.

Washington Sens. Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell, and the rest of the Democratic caucus, voted against the amendment, as did Republican Sens. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire and Cory Gardner of Colorado. Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, initially voted against the amendment, but later changed her mind and voted for it.

Members of Risch's staff did not return calls Tuesday seeking comment.

The amendment doesn't authorize the transfer of any federal land. Instead, the procedural step creates a mechanism, known as a spending neutral reserve fund, which allows the Senate to take up future land transfer legislation without violating the Budget Control Act of 2011. The act requires legislation to be deficit-neutral or to identify offsets.

The amendment would exclude the transfer of national parks, national preserves and national monuments.

Crapo's comment puts him in the camp with many Republican legislators from Idaho and other Western states, most notably Utah, who believe the states should have been given title to federal land within their borders when they entered the Union. Instead, those federal land holdings, or reserves, made up what would become national forests, parks and land overseen by the Bureau of Land Management.

Those lands are immensely popular with many Idahoans and citizens throughout the nation for the recreation, solitude and wildlife habitat they provide. But some legislators and county commissioners feel the federal government isn't able to properly manage the land through logging, grazing and mining, and the states would do a better job.

Idaho has signed onto an effort led by Utah that is attempting to force the federal government to give up its land within the state's borders. The strategy has little legal merit, according to Idaho Deputy Attorney General Steve Strack, but legislators have proceeded anyway.

Many outdoor enthusiasts and conservation groups who fear states will either mismanage the land or sell it to wealthy investors have aligned against the idea and expressed alarm at the votes by Crapo and Risch.

"The state does not have the capacity to manage over 30 million acres of our public lands, and we worry this will lead to a degradation of fish and wildlife habitat, or worse, a massive sell-off to private interests," said Michael Gibson, executive director of the Idaho Wildlife Federation at Boise. "It is troubling that our Senate delegation is supporting this ill-conceived idea."

Crapo said the amendment only provides the Senate with the ability for future deliberations on land transfer and doesn't even mention the possibility selling land. He also said the amendment doesn't undercut the collaborative processes, such as the Clearwater Basin Collaborative, which he favors as the best way to solve controversial public land management issues.

"It was a budget amendment with no substance in terms of details and left working out of any details to future legislation that would necessarily, if it comes together, will be as a result coming to consensus," he said. "I don't see how it would undercut the idea of working together to find solutions to land management approach."

But the willingness of Crapo and Risch to even entertain the idea is enough to raise red flags for some. Even though the legislation doesn't authorize the sale of public land, it could lead to it, said Brad Brooks of the Wilderness Society at Boise.

"Votes matter more than words, and a vote to allow the sale of public lands speaks for itself," he said. "The vast majority of Idahoans enjoy our national forests and BLM lands regularly and would be upset - to put it mildly - if their favorite hunting, camping or fishing spot was sold to the highest bidder and a 'no trespassing' sign went up instead."

---

Barker may be contacted at ebarker@lmtribune.com or at (208) 848-2273. Follow him on Twitter @ezebarker.