The environment has become a political battleground in Arizona. The reasons come down to water and land. Frenzied urban growth is pushing open space and wildlife habitat beyond the reach of an afternoon Sunday drive. Determining the future for large tracts of state trust land has become a battle of competing interests — cities, developers, ranchers and environmental groups. And the environmental groups themselves are split over the details. There is not water, water everywhere, and — during the state’s prolonged drought — developers and environmental groups are fighting over what remains.

Given Arizona’s conservative bent, it could be tempting to view the environmental groups as the underdogs. But they have proven themselves to be skilled political players. They have statewide memberships numbering in the thousands. In general, they appear to have broad public support when speaking out for clean water, clean air and wildlife protection.

In the trenches, however, these groups differ in their tactics. They often disagree over the best way save to save the forests and preserve open space.

In the four profiles of environmental groups that follow, however, there is broad agreement on one subject. They all have to find ways to work with the Legislature.

Arizona Wildlife Federation

The Arizona Wildlife Federation has roots going back to 1923, when it fought to create an independent state Game and Fish Commission. The idea was “to get politics out of wildlife management,” says the group’s Web site. Voters approved creation of the commission in a 1928 ballot measure. Early Federation supporters included hunters and anglers, but the 5,000 or so members on today’s database include many conservationists as well, says Mary Jo Forman Miller, Arizona Wildlife Federation president.

“We have hunters, fishermen, but primarily people who just enjoy the outdoors,” Ms. Miller says.

Protecting the outdoors is not just a matter of sentimentality, she adds. It’s matter of dollars and cents.

“Wildlife is a resource of the state that drives a lot of its financial success,” Ms. Miller says. “People come here because they have a perception that we have a lot of open space and a lot of wildlife.”

The state’s elected representatives, however, have not always shown the same appreciation, Ms. Miller says.

“Generally, I would say that our legislative efforts in the area of wildlife conservation and wildlife habitat are inadequate,” Ms. Miller says. On reflection, she adds: “It might be better to say conservation and wildlife and wildlife habitat is not a priority for the state Legislature.”

She says one legislative victory came on a proposal the Legislature never took up. The recommendations dealt with the management of state trust lands. They were the end product of a three-year task force headed by Ed Fox, an executive at Arizona Public Service Co. and former head of the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality. Task Force members included a variety of interests, all with a stake in the disposal of trust land. Currently, trust land comprises some 9.3 million acres. In an arrangement dictated by federal law and the state Constitution, trust-land income — from its sale and lease — goes into a fund for public schools. Disputes have arisen over how much — if any — of this land should be set aside for conservation.

The recommendations were meant to be taken up by a special session of the Legislature last spring.

Though the proposal called for 300,000 acres to be set aside for conservation, the Arizona Wildlife Federation opposed it. From the Federation’s perspective, the package had a number of poison pills.

It would have allowed for land exchanges. The Federation generally opposes government exchanges of land with private landowners, contending the public usually comes out on the short end. In addition, the Fox plan would have given ranchers the right to renew grazing leases without having to face competitive bids from environmental groups, which want to remove the cows. In 2001, the Arizona Supreme Court struck down a rule barring such competitive bidding.

The Federation saw the proposal as a step backward, Ms. Miller says.

It would like to see a “greater acknowledgement of the damage that livestock actively makes on the state trust lands,” she says.

In a July newsletter, Federation officials gave credit to supporters for sending lawmakers letters opposing the plan. The Federation continues to wait for a trust-land package it can support.

Sierra Club

The Sierra Club, Grand Canyon Chapter, has long had a voice at the Capitol in Sandy Bahr, the group’s conservation outreach director. In that time, Ms. Bahr’s pro-environment agenda has often been at odds with the Arizona Legislature.

But she felt she could speak to and — to some extent — deal with members from both sides of the aisle. That is, until last session, she says.

“One of things about last year, there was a new edge to things,” Ms. Bahr says. “People were less willing to discuss things in a reasonable manner. A lot more people were going back on their word.”

In one case, a House member agreed to amend a bill in committee after conferring with Ms. Bahr. He amended the bill. Then, without telling her, he stripped the amendment on the floor, at the request of House leadership.

“It just seemed like kind of a slap in the face and not very respectful of the process or the people involved,” Ms. Bahr says.

The bill emerged from its cocoon as Prop. 104, meant as a roadblock to the initiative process, according to the Sierra Club and other environmental groups. The measure would move up the filing deadline for an initiative petition from four months to seven months before the general election. Among other things, an earlier deadline would make a petition more vulnerable to court challenges.

A companion referendum, Prop. 101, would bar general-fund expenditures for programs enacted through ballot measures. Any voter-approved measure would have to spell out a separate source of revenue.

Both measures would amend the state Constitution. Both are opposed by the Sierra Club. “It’s a power grab by the Legislature,” Ms. Bahr says.

For outside groups, the initiative allows them to put their issues to a vote when the Legislature refuses to listen. The Arizona Humane Society, she says, went to the ballot with an anti-cockfighting initiative in 2000 after the Legislature repeatedly refused to pass similar proposals.

The Sierra Club itself asked voters to approve curbs to urban growth with an initiative in 2000. The measure went down in flames in the wake of fierce opposition from builders, building suppliers and farmers. But it forced the Legislature to refer a competing measure to require communities to plan for growth, Ms. Bahr says.

This year, however, has been a bad one for ballot measures, Ms. Bahr says. The Sierra Club has not endorsed any of them. For one, it has taken no position on Prop. 400, which would extend a half-cent sales tax in Maricopa County to build more freeways, extend light-rail service and add more buses. The total tab is an estimated $15.8 billion. For the Sierra Club, the sticking point is freeways. They only encourage developers, Ms. Bahr says. On the other hand, the Sierra Club vigorously opposes Prop. 100, a proposed constitutional amendment allowing for state land swaps with the federal government.

In name, the constitutional referendum implies it will preserve land around military bases. That’s not how the Sierra Club sees it. State trust land acquired in a swap could be sold to developers — including those aching to build north of Scottsdale, Ms. Bahr says.

“The lands that would actually
become state trust lands are federal public lands that are on the urban fringe,” Ms. Bahr says. “What part of the Tonto National Forest are you willing to trade away?”

Nature Conservancy

Unlike the Sierra Club, The Nature Conservancy is known for keeping a low profile in the political sphere. That is changing, says Pat Graham, president of The Nature Conservancy’s Arizona chapter.

“I think it’s sort of an evolution from the idea of buying and protecting a 200-acre nature preserve,” Mr. Graham says. “When you’re looking at an issue like Forest Health and protecting the Sonoran Desert, we need to find other tools to achieve conservation.”

Last session, Governor Napolitano signed into law the Forest Health bill (H2549), which gives tax incentives for loggers to thin out trees that might provide fuel for forest fires. The Sierra Club and Arizona Wildlife Federation opposed the measure, saying there are inadequate protections for larger, old-growth trees. The Nature Conservancy not only supported it, Mr. Graham says, but the group’s volunteers are helping to make the law work.

“We work with the Forest Service on adaptive management,” he says. “Basically, it’s a commitment to taking action, monitoring that action and taking what you learn from that.”

Forest Health, he adds, is not all about logging, he says. It provides for a commitment to forest ecology as well, he adds.

The Nature Conservancy even extends a hand to ranchers, who often lock horns with environmentalists.

“We try not to characterize any group of people one way or the other,” he says. “I think ranchers view themselves as part of the land.” But he adds: “I think by and large people in the West tend not to want to be told what to do.”

In one project, The Nature Conservancy is working with ranchers to preserve the threatened Chiricahua leopard frog. Ranchers and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have agreed to let Conservancy volunteers maintain livestock ponds as habitat for the frogs.

It’s a hands-on approach the Conservancy won’t soon abandon. But the group has become more attentive to wider issues that require political action. In particular, Mr. Graham says, the Conservancy wants the Legislature to give counties and other local entities more authority to control development that could threaten riparian habitats, including those along the San Pedro and Verde rivers.

The Conservancy would like clear authority for:

• Counties to transfer development rights, compensating landowners while locating development away from environmentally sensitive areas.

• The Arizona Corporation Commission to raise the price of water delivered by private companies in times of drought — to reduce water loss from aquifers that feed rivers.

• Cities and counties to prohibit development when the Department of Environmental Quality reports there is not enough water to sustain it.

On that final point, Mr. Graham says, “current law is ambiguous.”

When it comes to ballot measures, The Nature’s Conservancy’s political agenda is one of neutrality. The group has no position on any of the propositions, though it appears to be leaning against the anti-initiative measures. It has supported some initiatives in the past, but it cannot by law endorse candidates. If it did, it could not take in tax-deductible donations. (The Sierra Club Grand Canyon Chapter — which does endorse candidates — is nonprofit, but donations to it are not deductible.)

“We work with whoever’s elected, as long as they demonstrate political leadership,” he says.

On the other hand, the Conservancy does not like politicians to use the group’s name simply to bolster their green credentials.

“What we don’t want to become is just a green cover for the process,” Mr. Graham says.

Arizona League of Conservation Voters

The Arizona League of Conservation Voters is not shy about endorsing candidates. Most people can probably figure that out from the name.

Like the Sierra Club, it also puts out an annual report card, grading state senators and representatives on their environmental record. Both groups chart votes on bills viewed as pro- and anti-environment.

For the most part, Republicans garner most of the F’s and Democrats most of the A’s on both report cards. Both groups endorse many of the same candidates as well. From the president on down to the statehouse, the endorsements generally go to Democrats, though both groups are officially nonpartisan.

But the League occasionally parts ways with the Sierra Club on issues and endorsements. For one, the League endorsed Republican John McCain in his U.S. Senate reelection bid. The Sierra Club has not taken a stance on that one. Mr. McCain faces Democrat Stuart Starky, an 8th grade math teacher from Phoenix.

Susan Culp, the League’s assistant director and state lobbyist, says the endorsement reflects Mr. McCain’s environmentally friendly stances on a number of issues.

“He has opposed going into the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drill for oil exploration,” Ms. Culp says. “He’s also taken on a leadership role on climate change.”

Like The Nature Conservancy, the League also found itself at odds with the Sierra Club and the Arizona Wildlife Federation over the Forest Health law. It supported the bill, with some reservations, Ms. Culp says. The League, for example, would like to tighten up tax incentives given to loggers to thin out trees, while adding specific protection for larger trees.

“I think the Governor’s Office stated that they wanted to come back to that,” Ms. Culp says.

On the ballot measure, the League supports Prop. 400 for its light-rail component, but opposes the anti-initiative referendums.

Then there is the sacred cow for environmental groups, the Heritage Fund, established by voters in 1990 for wildlife protection and the state parks, each allocated $10 million a year from Lottery proceeds. Just about every environmentalist in the state keeps a watchful eye on the fund, as just about every session the Legislature tries to divert the money into other programs.

It’s a fight environmentalists know all too well: playing defense against a conservative Legislature. This January, the prospects for an even more conservative Legislature are looking good — or bad, depending on a person’s politics.

For Ms. Culp and the League, it looks bad. That could mean spending less time at the state Capitol and on more on conservation issues at the local level.

Referring to the upcoming 47th Legislature, she says, “I think it’s going to be a tough two years, and we have a finite amount of resources, and we’re not interested in beating our heads against the wall.” —