Tucson, Arizona Thursday, 22 November 2001
Environmentalists may outbid ranchers
Court opens grazing leases
By Howard Fischer
CAPITOL MEDIA SERVICES
PHOENIX - Ranchers have no more right to lease state land than conservationists do, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled Wednesday.
In a precedent-setting ruling, the justices said state Land Commissioner Dennis Wells had no right to refuse to let environmental groups bid on grazing leases. Instead, they concluded, state officials must at least consider them - and award leases to conservationists if they are in the best interest of the state.
Wednesday's decision is a victory for Forest Guardians, a group that has tried for years to bid on grazing leases and then let the land rest. In fact, the high court noted there was evidence that at least one parcel sought by the group had been "overgrazed and reduced to a 'moonscape' in need of restoration."
Attorney Tim Hogan called it a victory for the state's schools, which are beneficiaries of trust lands and share in lease proceeds.
But Charles "Doc" Lane, lobbyist for the Arizona Cattlemen's Association, disagreed - and not only because ranchers are losing their exclusive right to bid on the approximately 7 million acres of state trust lands earmarked for grazing.
He said when state land is withdrawn from grazing it means fewer cattle - and, eventually, fewer ranchers. That, Lane said, means many won't be around to bid on land when a 10-year lease is up. He said environmentalists wouldn't bid again, either, if the land is no longer subject to grazing.
"Why would they pay the schools to achieve what they have already achieved?" he asked.
But the Arizona Education Association doesn't see it that way. In fact, the organization filed a brief with the high court supporting the ability of environmentalists to outbid ranchers.
When Arizona became a state, Congress gave it nearly 10 million acres. The federal law allows sale or lease of this land only to the "highest and best bidder at a public auction," with proceeds earmarked for public schools; that provision is echoed in the state Constitution.
Three cases formed the basis for the court's ruling.
Jonathan Tate, who has been active in the Western Gamebird Alliance, wanted to lease 16,000 acres north of Oracle Junction to let the grasses grow, making the land available to hunters.
"The grazing has destroyed the birding habitat," said Tate, who offered twice as much as the existing leaseholder was paying.
The Forest Guardians offered to pay twice as much for 5,000 acres in Coconino County near Cataract Creek and five times as much for 162 acres in Santa Cruz County through which the Babocomari River runs. Both bids were rejected out of hand.
Justice Stanley Feldman, writing the majority opinion, said the land department's decisions ignored the legal requirements.
Feldman said it is clear that Tate and the Forest Guardians offered the highest bid. He said the question of who is the "best" bidder is a closer call and Wells does have some discretion.
But that discretion does not extend to simply deciding that grazing is the only permitted use.
"Restoration and preservation are already and must continue to be considered legitimate uses for land that
. . . has no higher and better use than grazing," Feldman wrote. "Otherwise, grazing lessees could continue to graze stock until the land is damaged and its value destroyed."
Justice Frederick Martone, the lone dissenter in Wednesday's 4-1 ruling, said Wells should not be forced to accept a bid on grazing land from any individual or group with a different agenda. He said state law already requires the land commissioner to deny leases on land that is overgrazed. |
