Transferring public lands to states? Local control of land use in Colorado: agrivoltaics and who gets to decide. Yes Mr. Toor, another gov't enterprise is just what's needed!
Transferring public lands to states--some recent government moves.
For those interested in public land policy, I wanted to share a couple of recent articles I found.
They are both KUNC articles and I link to them below. The first details a recent US Supreme Court decision that struck down a suit brought by Utah.
This quote sums it up pretty well: "The U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) on Monday stopped Utah’s long-shot public lands lawsuit in its tracks. It's the latest rejection in a decades-old fight to turn control of federally managed lands over to states"
Reading further, you see that Utah had sued to try and force the Feds to hand over any BLM land that was not marked as (again, quoting), "...wilderness, parks or monuments."
Their contention was that the Feds can't hold onto these lands indefinitely if they are not going to make them in some way special.
SCOTUS did stop the lawsuit, but it's important to note what this means and what it doesn't. Often news articles say a court struck something down which is factually true, but needs much in the way of context. Utah sent a special petition to SCOTUS, they tried to jump a few steps in the court process, but all that SCOTUS did was refuse to hear the special petition.
Utah still has the option to take their case to a lower court and start that years-long process. Will they? Good question. The article itself seems to point to the fact that this fight (over who controls public lands, states or Feds) is not over. I put that with the fact that other states, along with some counties and Federal legislators, supported the lawsuit along with all the advocates who cheered this, and I have the sense that this will not end here.
The second article linked below is also about public lands policy, but it details a bill that is currently in the Federal legislature. Some advocates argue this bill would grease the skids for transferring public lands to states.
This contention, by the reading of this non-lawyer anyway, seems pretty speculative to me. Quoting the article (with links left intact):
"That package [the House Bill] is full of yawn-inducing, technical language. But one paragraph states that a transfer of federal land to state, local or tribal governments 'shall not be considered as providing new budget authority, decreasing revenues, increasing mandatory spending, or increasing outlays. 'That means, as reported by the New York Times, that such land is basically without monetary value. Similar rules were also approved in 2017 and 2023. That language is stoking fears among some environmental groups that the rule could ease the transfer of public lands to states - and possibly lead to their privatization. Rob Mason, the Wilderness Society’s Idaho director, said the Gem State would likely not be able to afford to manage that land. b 'What does that mean?' he said. 'The way to afford to manage some of the lands is to sell others. That is the real revenue generator.'”
Is what Mason says above possible? Yes, but I don't get the sense that it's necessarily what will happen.
I think what interests me most about both of these articles is the response of environmental advocates in both the articles. Regardless of the eventual outcome of these efforts, what I seem to pick up in both articles is the nervousness about Federal lands moving to state possession.
That leads me to wonder: why the nerves? It obviously relates to the sale or transfer of those lands, but in what way is that going to automatically be bad?
Sure, states could sell off the lands (or lease them), but they do similar with state lands now, and we've not seen a forest of oil derricks or commercial development, at least not in Colorado. I don't get the sense that this would change (esp here in Colorado). I also don't get the sense that it would mean selling off national parks or something.
My cynical side keeps telling me that perhaps this concern is as much about environmentalists wanting control over the land to be centralized so as to make their fight easier. If more control over more land devolves to the states, why they'd have to fight state by state, on several fronts, all at once. Their ability to get the ear of fewer policymakers at the Federal level would vanish.
I suppose we'll see. I have a feeling, both from these articles and from more Colorado-centered fights like that over Dolores Canyon, that this fight will be a big one and is far from over.
https://www.kunc.org/regional-news/2025-01-13/u-s-supreme-court-squashes-utahs-public-lands-lawsuit
https://www.kunc.org/2025-01-08/us-house-public-land-mike-simpson-wilderness-society
Local control of land use in Colorado: agrivoltaics and who gets to decide
Have you ever heard of the term agrivoltaics? There are other synonyms but this seems to be the main one.
It's a topic I've written about before. As suggested by the word itself, photovoltaics describes setups that combine agriculture and solar panels. For example, you might have a pasture with solar panels in it, or perhaps a farm with solar panels.
The idea here is to capitalize on a supposed efficiency: Ag often has lots of ground (needed for renewables), why not use this excess of space to host solar panels? It can be done without affecting the agricultural use after all. It's that latter sentence that explains why I put in the "supposed". I'm not so sure that there are no losses of production from the solar; energy is never made or destroyed. Take it from plants to put into electricity and no loss in plant matter? Dubious.
Nonetheless, it's a big thing these days as our state continues its glorious transition to renewable energy. This presents something of a problem for local governments and rural areas because, while the state might think things like this are quite corking, those municipal governments and people who must live around and with such installations may not.
The big questions here are common ones. What do we do with shared resources (such as state land)? Who gets to decide what goes on in your local area?
The Journal Advocate article linked first below details a recent radio appearance by my state senator Byron Pelton where he raises the issues above. I'll leave it to you to read the article for the color commentary, but I can offer a quick update on two broad concerns he raises.
The second question, who decides, is a perennial one with regard to renewable energy. I imagine it will continue to be this way. Last year's effort to take siting and land use control for renewables away from local governments and put it in the hands of state level officials (see the second link below), was watered down substantially in the face of resistance.
Will it return? I would say it would likely return, but I have nothing concrete to share with you. If and when that changes, I will update.
The other concern, the one dealing who has access to shared resources is (at least to me) a newer one and something I wasn't aware of before. Will the state lease its public land out for renewables, and, if so, would these leases prevent leases to ranchers?**
In the Journal Advocate article, Sen Pelton mentions drafting and running a bill that would require the state to plan for both cattle and solar if it plans to lease to solar companies. I called and spoke with him and was told this effort is on hold perhaps until the next legislative session so that the legislation can be more thoughtfully crafted. Sen Pelton said he did not want to have any unintended effects on producers and lease revenue (which funds quite a bit of education, especially in rural areas).
I wanted to offer the state's thinking on this to you as well. I went to the 1/16/2025 Colorado Energy Office (CEO) legislative SMART hearing to pull the audio of CEO Director Will Toor. That is the third link below.
Mr. Toor's report on what CEO has been up to starts at about the 12:54:00 mark. Senator Pelton's questions for Mr. Toor about land use begin at about the 1:13:00 mark.
Mr. Toor and Sen Pelton discuss these sorts of land use issues at about the 1:17:45 mark. As with the article, I'll leave it to you to listen up, but there are a couple of things worth noting.
First, Mr. Toor is correct in noting that many decisions about public land use are made by the Colorado Land Board. That means that if you have strong feelings on this issue, you should consider emailing the board and/or attending a meeting and offering comment. I linked to the land board commissioners'/director's page fourth below.
Second, Mr. Toor in the hearing expressed his opinion that cooperation between renewables and Ag was possible and that it was something his office felt important. Whether his actions bear that out is another matter (and one to be seen), but he at least said the right words in the hearing.
If and when I hear something on this issue, if and when there's legislation on it, I will update as with the state stepping in on land use.
**I've posted in the past about layered leasing of public lands, the state leasing the same land for two different purposes say both ranching and recreation, something our governor is supposedly a fan of.
https://www.journal-advocate.com/2025/01/21/rural-legislators-face-fight-for-agriculture-on-two-fronts/#content
https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb24-212
https://sg001-harmony.sliq.net/00327/Harmony/en/PowerBrowser/PowerBrowserV2/20250122/45/16342#agenda_
https://slb.colorado.gov/about-us/leadership
Related:
Kiowa County is being sued by a renewable energy company AND by the Northern Cheyenne Tribe.
More in the article, but in brief, Towner Wind Energy is suing the county claiming that the county is not being fair in their assessment of an impact fee** on the project.
The Tribe is suing because the wind turbines will disturb the landscape around an area sensitive to them--the Sand Creek Massacre site.
Thorny issues and a peek at what kind of controversy renewables siting can generate.
More in the article linked below.
https://kiowacountyindependent.com/news/4727-kiowa-county-sued-separately-by-invenergy-northern-cheyenne-tribe-threatening-renewable-energy-projects
Yes Mr. Toor, another government enterprise is just what's needed!
In the post above I shared the SMART act testimony of Mr. Will Toor, director of the Colorado Energy Office (CEO).
I skipped over it because it wasn't germane to the topic at hand, but something Mr. Toor hinted at in his testimony stuck out enough to warrant special mention.
I recopied the link of the audio from the 1/16 hearing first below for convenience.
At the 1:01:35 markToor talks about taking the monies collected from EV's (which is growing as EV sales here pick up) and "enterprising" them.
Meaning he's hoping to inspire a legislator to run a bill which would take the monies EV owners pay now (as part of SB 260, the "fix our damn roads" bill), and put them in an enterprise so the government can keep yet more money and avoid TABOR caps on revenue.
You knew it was coming right? I mean even before you knew it was coming, you knew it was coming. Nothing like government to know no satiety when it comes to your money.
I personally find it hard to sympathize with EV owners perhaps paying more because of the subsidies I'm forced to give them so they can have their EV, but I am also opposed to the government shadily working around TABOR and the will of taxpayers no matter what the rationale.
If I see something about it, I'll share.
**Curious for the source of the graph heading this post? See the second link below.
https://sg001-harmony.sliq.net/00327/Harmony/en/PowerBrowser/PowerBrowserV2/20250122/45/16342#agenda_
https://www.commonsenseinstituteus.org/colorado/research/taxes-and-fees/snapshot-of-fees-in-colorado-2024-update