Illustration by Arnie Bermudez

If you've ever really looked at the things that environmental groups spend their time and money on, you've realized they're much less interested in protecting the environment than they are in going after industry. It's blatantly obvious from the lawsuits they file and the bills they oppose that protecting the environment is a secondary concern to taking down those who use land to make a living. The latest incarnation of their deception is the Center for Biological Diversity's opposition to a proposal reforming the way state trust land is managed.

State trust land is land that was given to the state by the federal government when Arizona was admitted to the union in 1912. Basically, the state is obligated by the Arizona Constitution to manage the land for the maximum benefit of beneficiaries of the trust while still preserving the land for future use. The state is also allowed to sell trust land, usually through an auction, though this is only done in small amounts. After 92 years, about 86 percent of the land is still owned by the state. The money the state makes off of the lease and sale of the land goes to the beneficiaries of the trust. These are mostly educational organizations, including the UA and other public schools.

The trust land is not "public land" as we traditionally think of it. It belongs to the state, not the people, so we don't all have a right to use it like we would a national forest or city park. The state has the right to manage it in accordance with the state constitution. In many cases, the state leases the land to ranchers who use it for grazing their herds. This has a tendency to get the environmentalists all riled up because overgrazing can harm the environment.

There was a proposal sent to the Legislature and governor last week that would reform the way trust land is managed. The proposal would immediately set aside about 287,000 acres of trust land for preservation, and would make it easier for municipalities to purchase land for conservation purposes. It would also allow the Land Department to exchange land with other government agencies as long as the land is to be set aside for preservation. Sounds great so far, right?

Tim Belshe Columnist

There's also a provision in the proposal that would allow the Land Department to extend a rancher's grazing lease without competitive bidding, if the ranche agrees to follow practices to protect the overall health of the environment on the land.

So why would an organization like the CBD have a problem with this? It forces ranchers to take better care of the environment. What's wrong with that?

It's simple: It also makes it easier for ranchers to do business. Without competitive bidding to renew a lease, the rancher will be able to lower his costs. That's something the environmentalists can't stand.

If this proposal is fully implemented, and that's a big "if," considering it would require changing both the state's laws and constitution, it would make it easier for agencies and governments to acquire land for conservation, and would help to clean up industry. The environmentalists just can't accept that while the state is doing this, Arizona is also going to give some incentives to industry to get them to go along with it.

In all fairness, the CBD is not the only group opposing this proposal. There are numerous environmental groups that have come out against these changes. But considering that the CBD will probably be the first one to file a lawsuit about this, and the fact that it is based here in Tucson, its opposition is particularly disappointing.

Are you ready for the real kicker? Most of the groups opposing this proposal were the ones who helped draft it in the first place. It's only now, when the proposal also includes incentives for industry, that they've come out against it.

The environmental lobby needs to get its priorities straight. If it's really out to protect the environment, then it shouldn't be afraid to compromise every now and then. I would think that giving a small incentive to an industry would be worth it if it is forced to clean up its act.

Tim Belshe is a systems engineering junior. He can be reached at letters@wildcat.arizona.edu.