Bill Overview
Title: Advancing Conservation and Education Act
Description: This bill allows the states of Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, or Wyoming to relinquish state land grant parcels wholly or primarily within eligible areas and select, in exchange, public land within the state. Eligible areas are areas within the outer boundaries of units or components of the National Park, National Wilderness Preservation, National Wildlife Refuge, or National Landscape Conservation Systems, areas identified by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) as having wilderness characteristics, certain designated lands within the National Forest System or administered by the BLM, and sentinel landscapes designated by the Department of Agriculture, Department of Defense, or Department of the Interior. Interior shall create a process for the relinquishment of such parcels. States may select in exchange, and Interior may convey, lands that are mineral in character. The overall value of the state land grant parcels and the public land to be conveyed shall be equal or made equal. The bill sets forth requirements regarding hazardous materials on land to be conveyed, water rights, grazing permits, road rights-of-ways, and protection of Indian rights.
Sponsors: Rep. Stewart, Chris [R-UT-2]
Target Audience
Population: People living in or near public lands in 13 states, land management and related industries, tribal communities and recreational users.
Estimated Size: 8500000
- This bill affects states with significant public lands, such as Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.
- The directly impacted populations include state governments, state land management agencies, and potentially citizens living near these public lands.
- Communities and industries relying on these lands for access, recreation, conservation, and resource extraction (e.g., mineral extraction) will be impacted.
- Tribal nations with historical claims or rights related to the lands in question may also be affected.
- Wildlife and conservation efforts in the eligible areas, such as National Parks and Wildlife Refuges, will be impacted given the change of land status.
- Public land users, including hikers, campers, and other recreational users, will be impacted.
Reasoning
- A diverse range of individuals will be affected by this policy including those involved in land use and management, conservation, industries utilizing land resources, and nearby residents.
- The policy impacts states with substantial public lands, so it may disproportionately affect those who live in proximity to these areas, including rural populations, indigenous groups, and outdoor enthusiasts.
- Given the financial constraints, priority may be placed on high-impact, low-cost exchanges initially, potentially affecting the perceived benefits and drawbacks among different stakeholders.
- Industries like mining could see benefits if mineral-rich lands are exchanged, but conservation groups could be concerned about environmental impacts.
- Local communities may have mixed views depending on whether they prioritize economic opportunities or conservation.
- The policy could eventually lead to changes in land access and use, influencing recreational activities.
Simulated Interviews
Park Ranger (Alaska)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm concerned about how these changes might affect our parks and local wildlife.
- If managed well, this policy could improve land management, but we need to ensure conservation efforts aren't compromised.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Mineral Extraction Project Manager (New Mexico)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could open new opportunities for our industry, especially in accessing mineral-rich lands.
- We must balance resource development with environmental stewardship.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Retired School Teacher (Montana)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope this doesn't limit our access to beautiful hiking trails.
- Conservation is crucial, but changes to land management worry me about future generations' access to nature.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Tribal Land Liaison (Arizona)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Any changes to land management need to respect historical and cultural land rights of indigenous peoples.
- I'm cautiously optimistic but wary about potential land disputes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
State Land Management Official (Colorado)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could streamline some of our transactions and enhance our conservation projects.
- The key is ensuring equal value exchanges to benefit both the state and conservation efforts.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Wildlife Conservationist (South Dakota)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- There's potential for positive impacts on habitats depending on how land exchanges are managed.
- The policy must safeguard wildlife protection over resource extraction.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Outdoor Recreational Guide (Washington)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As long as the public retains access, this policy could work.
- However, I worry about losing trails and increased privatization of lands.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Local Government Official (Oregon)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This could offer opportunities to better align land use with local needs.
- We need rigorous oversight to ensure that the value exchange is fair and communities benefit.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Agricultural Manager (Idaho)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- We could potentially benefit from acquiring more usable land.
- However, I worry about how this will affect local ecosystems and my community's environment.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Environmental Activist (Wyoming)
Age: 27 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could be disastrous if managed poorly, compromising public land for industrial gains.
- I'm skeptical, but there might be room to ensure these exchanges label more areas as protected.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)
Year 2: $5200000 (Low: $3200000, High: $7200000)
Year 3: $5400000 (Low: $3400000, High: $7400000)
Year 5: $5800000 (Low: $3800000, High: $7800000)
Year 10: $6000000 (Low: $4000000, High: $8000000)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- Land value equality clause requires careful appraisal to avoid federal budget losses.
- Inclusion of mineral rights in exchanged land parcels presents both opportunities and regulatory challenges.
- Balancing public land access with state development goals is crucial to maintain recreational and conservation interests.