Bill Description: Senate Joint Resolution 103 (SJR103) proposes an amendment to the Idaho Constitution to establish a new public lands trust, separate from the already existing state endowment lands, whose lands cannot be sold.
Rating: 0
Does it create, expand, or enlarge any agency, board, program, function, or activity of government? Conversely, does it eliminate or curtail the size or scope of government?
SJR103 establishes a new public lands trust separate from the already existing endowment lands. Currently, the endowment lands are managed by the State Board of Lands Commissioners “in such a manner as will secure the maximum long term financial return,” otherwise known as "highest and best use.” Under the new trust, the State Board of Lands Commissioners “shall manage such lands by employing best management practices to achieve a harmonious and coordinated management of the various resources, each with the other, that avoids permanent impairment to the land, ensures the development and utilization of the land and its resources occurs in a manner that conserves existing and future uses of the land, preserves valid existing rights, and is in accordance with state law.” This standard is similar to the current “multiple use mandate” established under the Federal Land Policy Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) for the management of federal lands. Although SJR103 changes the standard by which any newly acquired lands from the federal government are to be managed, the scope of authority to manage said lands remains the same and thus does not constitute an expansion of the State Board of Land Commissioners.
(0)
SJR103 stipulates the newly established “trust shall remain inviolable and intact for this and future generations” and that lands within the trust “shall not be sold.” Lands can be transferred from the newly established land trust to the endowment lands with the approval of 2/3rds of the legislature then sold. Despite this caveat, SJR103 effectively only allows for an increase in the state’s obligation to manage public lands and minimal authority to reduce its land portfolio. Consequently, the size of the Department of Lands will almost certainly need to increase to manage the trust. For example, were the state to acquire the remaining tracts of land in the Owyhee Desert from the Bureau of Land Management, it would increase the state’s responsibility regarding cheatgrass abatement.
(-1)
Does it transfer a function of the private sector to the government? Examples include government ownership or control of any providers of goods or services such as the land board’s purchase of a self-storage facility, mandatory emissions testing, or pre-kindergarten. Conversely, does it eliminate a function of government or return a function of government to the private sector?
SJR103 only covers lands “granted to or acquired by or from the general government” or swapped with preexisting state public land. Therefore, it neither eliminates nor transfers a function of the private sector to the government.
(0)
Does it increase barriers to entry into the market? Examples include occupational licensure, the minimum wage, and restrictions on home businesses. Conversely, does it remove barriers to entry into the market?
Because SJR103 stipulates that lands acquired by the trust cannot be sold, it perpetuates the restrictions placed on Idaho’s land market by the existence of vast tracts of undeveloped land.
(-1)
However, SJR103 would also arguably benefit Idaho’s natural resource industries over the status quo. While it maintains the federal “multiple-use mandate,” previous presidential administrations have employed loose interpretations of this principle to advance radical environmental policy. For example, in 2024 the Biden administration controlled BLM promulgated the Conservation and Landscape Health rule, which raised conservation to an equal footing with other uses like energy, grazing, and recreation. This rule would have led to a significant reduction in leases provided for cattle and mining operations. Foreseeably, the Idaho State Board of Land Commissioners can be expected to implement a policy more in line with the true spirit of multiple use.
(+1)
Does it directly or indirectly create or increase any taxes, fees, or other assessments? Conversely, does it eliminate or reduce any taxes, fees, or other assessments?
The amendment provides that any leftover funds not spent on management be used for various purposes, including compensating “counties for lands within the county’s boundaries that are held in the public lands trust.” Depending on how profitable the newly acquired lands are and how they are managed, the trust has the opportunity to reduce property taxes for rural communities.
(0)
Does it increase government spending (for objectionable purposes) or debt? Conversely, does it decrease government spending or debt?
SJR103 will likely increase overall government spending on land management If the amendment has its desired effect. However, the lands will also produce revenues whose first priority must be to “support operating and maintaining such lands.” It is indeterminate whether the revenues raised by any newly acquired lands will offset the cost of their management. Under the amendment, excess funds must be spent “to compensate counties for lands within the counties' boundaries that are held in the public lands trust; to improve and increase public use and access; and to support primary and secondary public educational facilities.” Whether this occurs will depend on what land is acquired by the state and what leases are given by the Board of Land Commissioners.
(0)
Does it violate the spirit or the letter of either the United States Constitution or the Idaho Constitution? Examples include restrictions on speech, public assembly, the press, privacy, private property, or firearms. Conversely, does it restore or uphold the protections guaranteed in the US Constitution or the Idaho Constitution?
The American system of self-government is predicated on the belief that the primary purpose of the social compact is to secure the rights of the people. In accordance with this fundamental principle, Article I, Sec. 1 of the Idaho Constitution declares that “all men are by nature free and equal, and have certain inalienable rights, among which are enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing and protecting property; pursuing happiness and securing safety.” The importance of the right to “acquire and possess property” cannot be understated. To facilitate the exercise of this fundamental right, our forefathers made available large tracts of uncultivated wilderness available to settlement. This was done in accordance with the belief that God did not intend for the earth to “remain common and uncultivated” but by right belonged to the “industrious and rational” so as to provide for the happiness of the greatest number of mankind. Unless one were to maintain that not a single acre of land currently held by the federal government should be developed, SJR103 arguably contravenes the right of the rational and industrious to acquire and possess property by limiting the sale of public lands within the trust.
(-1)
On the other hand, man’s natural liberty extends far beyond his right to acquire and possess property. In recognition of this truth, Article I, Sec. 23 of the Idaho Constitution protects the right of the people to hunt, trap, and fish. In many states west of the Rockies, these fundamental liberties are contingent upon one’s ownership of property, effectively denying urbanites full exercise of these rights. Thanks to Idahoans' access to one of the last vestiges of the American frontier, they are uniquely blessed with what Henry David Thoreau described as “absolute freedom and wildness, as contrasted with a freedom and culture merely civil.” SJR103 facilitates the full exercise of man’s natural liberty by ensuring that lands acquired by the state shall be held in trust and managed in a harmonious and coordinated manner that permits public recreation and preserves the health of wildlife habitat.
(+1)
Does it violate the principles of federalism by increasing federal authority, yielding to federal blandishments, or incorporating changeable federal laws into Idaho statutes or rules? Examples include citing federal code without noting as it is written on a certain date, using state resources to enforce federal law, and refusing to support and uphold the tenth amendment. Conversely, does it restore or uphold the principles of federalism?
Currently, 62 percent of Idaho is held by the federal government. This status quo undermines Idaho’s state sovereignty by subjecting vast tracts of its territory to the rules and regulations of the federal government. In recent years, Idaho’s rural communities have suffered devastating loss from wildfires caused by federal mismanagement of public land. Moreover, overly restrictive environmental regulations in US Forest Service and BLM land have imposed an undue burden on Idaho’s natural resource industries. This amendment restores and upholds the principles of federalism by creating a new public trust whereby the state of Idaho can take over management of said lands while still preserving their public status.
(+1)
Does it promote the breakdown of the traditional family or the deconstruction of societal norms? Examples include promoting or incentivizing degeneracy, violating parental rights, and compromising the innocence of children. Conversely, does it protect or uphold the structure, tenets, and traditional values of Western society?
SJR103 does not within itself promote traditional Western values but it does uphold Idaho’s unique frontier heritage. America’s national character is deeply indebted to our conquest of the frontier. It defined the American as a pioneering, self-sufficient, and self-governing individual. Idaho is among the few states where some semblance of that heritage is still preserved. SJR103 supports the principles that “we have fallen heirs to the most glorious heritage a people ever received, and each one must do his part if we wish to show that the nation is worthy of its good fortune.”
(0)
