• What We Do
  • Become a Member
  • News
  • Take Action
  • Donate
Facebook Instagram Twitter

8 Reasons CVI Opposes the Senate’s Flawed Lands Amendment

Dear CVI Members,

Two constitutional amendments are being considered by the Idaho Legislature that would impact our public lands. The House Amendment (HJR008) is intended to protect state lands, while the Senate Amendment (SJR102) creates a mechanism to transfer land from its current federal protections to the state of Idaho. 

CVI is opposed to Senate Joint Resolution 102. This legislation creates a mechanism to transfer public lands to the state of Idaho, jeopardizing funding for rural counties, undercutting habitat protections, and putting public access in jeopardy. While this bill would prevent the sale of state lands, a state can’t stop the federal government from privatizing public lands, so this does not protect against federal attempts to sell public lands. 

With the nuance and complexity of this legislation and with the significance and importance of both Constitutional Amendments and our public lands, we’ve provided the following context on this matter.

First off, what is a constitutional amendment?

A constitutional amendment seeks to amend the Idaho State Constitution. Here is the required process for a constitutional amendment to pass:

  1. Print Hearing: The Senate State Affairs Committee votes on whether to print the bill for it to receive a public hearing. It’s largely a procedural process with most bills passing.
    • Majority vote required by committee
  2. Senate Public Hearing: Testimony for and against the bill by both stakeholders and the general public.
    • Majority vote required by committee.
  3. Senate Floor Vote: Bill debated on floor of the Senate. 
    • ⅔ supermajority vote required in entire State Senate
  4. House Public Hearing: Testimony for and against the bill by both stakeholders and the general public.
    • Majority vote required by committee.
  5. House Floor Voter: Bill debated on floor of the House. 
    •  ⅔ supermajority vote required in entire State House
  6. On the Ballot: The proposed constitutional amendment would appear on all Idaho ballots in the November 2026 General Election.
    • Majority vote required by Idahoans
  7. Idaho’s Constitution Amended: Once all of these steps are completed, the Idaho State Constitution would be formally amended. In this case, Article IX would be amended.

 

What is this amendment proposing?

The name of this proposed constitutional amendment is Senate Joint Resolution 102 and it is being proposed by Senator Ben Adams (R-Nampa). This amendment would create a trust, managed by the Idaho Land Board, to manage and oversee any lands transferred from the federal government to the state of Idaho. While this is framed as a back-stop to prevent the sale of public lands, it instead functions as a mechanism for transfer to the state. A mass transfer to the state would bankrupt the state and/or result in a loss of access for Idahoans.

 

Why does CVI oppose this amendment?

After analyzing the bill, the comments of its co-sponsors, and the potential implications should it pass and be exploited by a future legislature, CVI does not support its passage.

Here are the issues we have identified:

  1. The language and priorities are inconsistent.
    • Constitutional Amendments should be clear, concise, direct, and consistent. The amendment states that “The state board of land commissioners shall coordinate management with agencies of the state to promote public recreation, scenic values, watershed quality, and wildlife habitat and to further effectuate the purposes of this trust.” We support this prioritization of recreation and wildlife, but it is immediately contradicted by the following sentence, which outlines how revenue would be generated to fund counties, rural schools, and land management including wildfire response. Together, those would cost the state $838 million per year. When faced with contradictory goals around conservation and revenue generation, we believe the state of Idaho is highly likely to close off lands and prioritize extreme levels of resource extraction just to break even.
  2. The bill’s original House co-sponsor intends to transfer lands.
    • First term Representative Jordan Redman (R-Hayden), the bill’s co-sponsor in the House, was interviewed two weeks ago on The Ranch Podcast and shared his goals for Idaho’s Federal public lands, stating he “would love to have all of it back in ownership of the state right away.” Representative Redman went on to say that he would prioritize revenue generation and that “with the proper management, we have no reliance on the federal government.” It is again clear that revenue generation would be prioritized at the expense of access to our cherished lands.
  3. The state could not afford to manage these lands.
    • Idaho has 34.5 million acres of public lands, largely stewarded by the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management. These lands were protected as an investment in our way of life by the American people specifically because we didn’t want the West to turn out like the East, where access to public lands are nearly nonexistent. While approximately 63% of Idaho is public lands, states like Ohio are at an alarming 1.2%. The management of these lands, including wildfire response, is funded through the taxes paid by all Americans. If transferred to the state, the $838 million cost would fall entirely on Idaho taxpayers. To keep our lands, the legislature would have to significantly increase taxes or monetize those lands at the expense of access.
  4. Wildfire costs are unpredictable and Idaho needs to balance our budget.
    • Currently, when a wildfire tears through Federal public land in Idaho, the Federal Government pays for that damage. If Idaho were to take over owning and managing these lands, the State would be on the hook for these costs. Forest fire costs to the State of Idaho in 2025 were $40.6 million and in 2024 were $58 million. These costs would be dwarfed compared to what they would balloon to in the future.
  5. The state could not replace PILT funding for counties and SRS funding for rural schools.
    • Because counties can’t collect property taxes from public lands, Congress compensates counties with PILT (Payment in Lieu of Taxes). Similarly, SRS (Secure Rural Schools) helps support rural schools. While this amendment attempts to replace these funds, Idaho could never generate enough revenue to match current PILT and SRS funding. CVI strongly believes that PILT and SRS compensation to counties needs to drastically increase and be guaranteed in perpetuity, not be cut or jeopardized with a variable fund.
  6. We would lose our existing rights, protections, access, laws, and rules.
    • Public land policy is extremely complex, with rights and protections that have been carefully negotiated by generations of local stakeholders, experts, and elected officials. These existing rights and protections guide everything from where and when we can mine, to where we build roads, to how we protect habitat, and what recreation opportunities are available. Nearly all of those established guidelines and requirements would disappear with a mass transfer of land.
  7. The State of Idaho can’t stop the United States from privatizing public lands.
    • As many know, there are those in federal office – most notably Utah Senator Mike Lee and Bureau of Land Management Director nominee Steve Pearce – who want to privatize and sell-off our public lands. A state constitution can’t control the actions of Congress or the federal government due to the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution. So while this amendment is intended to prevent sell-off of public lands acquired by the state of Idaho, there is no mechanism to actually protect public lands from privatization.
  8. This Amendment would prevent Idaho from effective land management policies.
    • While we are opposed to the mass transfer and/or mass sale of public lands, it is important to note that there are situations where our land management agencies should and must dispose of lands. Within Idaho, there are places where the Bureau of Land Management currently owns small parcels, often only a couple acres, that are stranded within private land and provide no habitat, revenue generation, or recreation opportunities. SJR102 allows for land exchanges, but prevents ALL sales. While we oppose mass sale, this type of blanket prevention is not effective land management policy. 

 

In closing, while we appreciate attempts to prevent public lands from privatization, that can’t come at the expense of habitat protections, access to the spaces we love, and funding for our rural communities. When it comes to public lands, we have to get it right. When it comes to the Idaho Constitution, we have to get it right. This amendment is unfortunately flawed, unclear, and contradictory. CVI opposes SJR102 and looks forward to working with legislators, the Congressional Delegation, stakeholders, and all of you to pass policies that more effectively protect the public lands that make Idaho great.