Backers of a new state trust land reform ballot initiative say their package avoids the pitfalls of previously unsuccessful measures, but lawmakers who say they were left out of the process are suggesting that a legislative solution might be necessary.

The proposed constitutional change, dubbed Conserving Arizona’s Future, has three primary aims. If enough signatures are gathered to place it on the November 2006 general election ballot, and if a majority of voters who vote on it approve, the initiative would set aside 694,000 acres for conservation, provide state and local authorities with the power to limit and control development and guarantee a funding stream for public education.

The initiative establishes a board of trustees to oversee transactions and provides funding for the Arizona Land Department from a percentage of the proceeds of trust land sales, making the agency more self-sufficient and less dependent on the state General Fund.

When Arizona became a state in 1912, Congress gave the state 9.3 million acres held in trust to help fund education and other state agencies. The proposed constitutional amendment would make conservation a legitimate use of trust lands.

In past attempts, and in particular a package submitted to the Legislature in 2004, homebuilders and ranchers mounted strong opposition, and the reform package went nowhere.

John Wright, president of the Arizona Education Association and one of the key participants in putting the current initiative together, said the new version “removed a number of the stumbling blocks.”

“This is more focused,” Mr. Wright said. “It slims down from the very comprehensive package we took to the Legislature last year. It does not address grazing leases, it does not address any issue of land exchange, it improves management, planning and oversight of state trust land for multiple benefits. We see this as a direct education-conservation partnership.”

Senate President Ken Bennett, R-1, was not involved in the development of the initiative and says he doesn’t know yet whether it protects rural interests. “I understand that it sets up a new governing board dominated by the educational beneficiaries and conservation groups,” Mr. Bennett said

The Senate president said a legislative referendum “will get some serious consideration after we look into details of this initiative.”

“From what I can tell, the group was very closed and confidential,” Mr. Bennett said. “Usually when you try to develop something in a closed format, it is inevitable to have issues and concerns brought by people who weren’t in the process. They have already decided what’s in it, and it can’t be changed. There might be some reason to refer some alternatives through legislation.”

Rep. Jake Flake, R-5, commented: “I am scared to death of that initiative. They’re changing the mission of state trust land from the highest and best use that was the intention of our forefathers and changing that to conservation. That land was given to the trust to finance schools. Now we’re getting to where they want to take land that doesn’t belong to them for nothing. That is not right.”

Mr. Flake said he supports setting aside land for conservation. “But those who want land for conservation ought to pay for it, by appraisal and not by auction. This initiative would be one of the biggest mistakes when it comes to funding our schools.”

When a developer buys state trust land, Mr. Flake said, often as much as 20 percent of it is set aside for conservation.

He said the Legislature appropriated additional funding for the Land Department this year to plan for the sale of trust land. “I’m willing to enhance that as far as it needs to be — keeping them lean and mean — to give them the funds necessary to enable them to sell the lands as is appropriate,” Mr. Flake said.

It is possible, he said, that the Legislature would consider action of its own next year. “We will take a look at that,” he said. “We might make a try at a referendum.”

Rep. Bill Konopnicki, R-5, said he believes a lot more people, including legislators, should have been involved in drafting the initiative.

Would he consider backing a referendum that contains many of the main points of the initiative? “Absolutely,” Mr. Konopnicki said. “The efforts in the past have been too concerned with too many people. We have to do what’s best for the state of Arizona and our children. You listen to everyone and at some point you draw the line and say this is the best.

“My biggest concern is the real estate market, and it won’t always stay this hot. I don’t know if the initiative provides for how long it will take to move property.”

Rep. Jack Brown, D-5, said he isn’t so sure the Legislature will be interested in tackling trust land reform anytime soon.

“It kind of depends on this one,” Mr. Brown said. “If it seems fairly reasonable, the Legislature won’t have the desire. I worked on several of them and I am willing to compromise so most everybody would be mostly happy. Some people don’t want to do anything. Most of us are willing to work together.

“I’m a rancher, been a rancher all my life. I don’t hold any state land, but some in my family do have state land. They have taken good care of it for many years. They’re the best stewards. You can’t use all the state land to build homes — there’s not enough water to support that. Ranchers take the best care of the land — it’s in their best interest,” Mr. Brown said.

Although he says he isn’t that familiar with the initiative, Mr. Brown said, “It sounds like it’s a pretty good start. They’ve gone around the Legislature because we couldn’t get anything done. Too many rocks in the road.”

Regarding the amount of trust land reserved for conservation, Mr. Bennett said, “It depends on where it is, and whether there is a reasonable expectation that it could or should he developed. My main concern is that’s a lot of land, and I’m curious about how the fund will be adequately compensated. The most important thing to me is maintaining the integrity and the original purpose of the trust.”

Mr. Konopnicki said of the conservation tracts, “Some proper use of that is in order, but I don’t know if it’s the right amount or in the right place. Having some set aside makes sense.”

Mr. Brown supports setting aside some acreage for conservation, but added, “We’ve got to be careful we don’t short-change the schools.”

Mr. Wright of the AEA said he has no concerns about the conservation aspects of the initiative.

“In the long term, setting aside the right land will be a benefit to trust,” he said.

“Three-hundred thousand acres is the most valuable land. These lands include a water shed area and critical wildlife habitats. It would be to Arizona’s detriment and to education’s detriment to develop those lands. The other 400,000 acres are available to be purchased at market value by cities and towns or by organizations that are able to manage land for conservation purposes. Conservationists would get to the front of line to buy these lands, all to be used for conservation.”

If the initiative, which only addresses constitutional issues, passes, the Legislature would need to address the implementation of the proposed changes, Mr. Wright said.

“We are giving the Land Department new tools and flexibility in disposing of land for the beneficiaries, and some of the tools need legislative action,” he said. “There are details that you don’t want to pu
t in the Constitution — practices that might have to change.”

Mr. Wright said he has heard of no opposition so far. “I don’t believe anything in this initiative is contrary to homebuilders and cattle growers,” he said.

Steve Roman of the consulting firm of Hamilton, Gullett, Davis & Roman, said that after having filed the necessary paperwork at the Secretary of State’s Office on July 19, planning is underway to gather signatures and meet with community leaders.

To qualify for the 2006 ballot, at least 183,917 valid signatures of registered voters are needed by next July 6.

“We know there may be some people who have questions and raise concerns,” Mr. Roman said. “Most people have been very supportive.”

Tim Hogan, executive director of the Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest, opposed the trust land package that was submitted to lawmakers last year.

“This time they [initiative backers] took out the stuff we were opposed to, particularly on grazing leases,” he said. “A year ago they had provisions that extended grazing lease terms to 25 years and basically prohibited competition.”

On the overall initiative, Mr. Hogan said, “It’s a proposal they’re making to the voters. I’ll vote on it just like everybody else.”

As far as education is concerned, Mr. Wright said, “This means we are securing and enhancing a dedicated source of revenue for Arizona’s public schools that is not subject to legislative appropriation — a revenue source that will grow exponentially in the coming years.” —