Legislation Would Require Legislative Approval Prior to State Land Purchase

[bigtex]

Senate Bill 5054 would REQUIRE WDFW/DNR/Parks to get approval from the state legislature for ANY land purchase. This bill has nothing to do with the state spending money on land purchases but supposedly more about taking lands off tax rolls. The big opposition to this is that this approval could take over a year to get approved. What are the chances those lands could still be for sale?

WDFW and in some cases DNR pay a fee known as Payment in Lieu of Taxes for state lands in counties, these payments are almost always higher then if it were taxes generated by a private landowner. In 2012 the federal govt contributed over $15M for 11M acres of federally owned lands.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?year=2013&bill=5054

Here is a breakdown by county in terms of percent of the county owned by state (DNR/WDFW/Parks):
Adams 4.5%
Asotin 11.5%
Benton 4.9%
Chelan 3.3%
Clallam 9.6%
Clark 14.4%
Columbia 3.7%
Cowlitz 12.2%
Douglas 9.9%
Ferry 2.5%
Franklin 3.9%
Garfield 4%
Grant 7.9%
Grays Harbor 6.8%
Island 1.5%
Jefferson 14.6%
King 8.5%
Kitsap 4.4%
Kittitas 22%
Klickitat 10.1%
Lewis 6.3%
Lincoln 4.4%
Mason 8.9%
Okanogan 10.9%
Pacific 11.7%
Pend Oreille 3.4%
Pierce 2.7%
San Juan 2%
Skagit 11.9%
Skamania 7.8%
Snohomish 11.4%
Spokane 3.9%
Stevens 10%
Thurston 13.6%
Wahkiakum 21.6%
Walla Walla 2.3%
Whatcom 10%
Whitman 2.3%
Yakima 9.6%

The bill passed the Senate (vote of 28-21) and is now in the House.

[bigtex]

My view is that this is a BAD bill. This has nothing to do with the state spending money, but only about the state getting more land. We all know about the Olympia gridlock, do we really need land acquisition bills to get caught up in that? Does a simple acquisition of a parcel of private land surrounded by DNR land need to get legislative approval? Or a landlocked piece of land that WDFW wants to purchase an access point?

29/39 counties contain less then 11% state ownership. As I mention in my original post WDFW (and in some circumstances DNR) already pays a higher tax rate then if these lands were in private ownership.

Legislators and the public can already comment on land acquisition proposals in front of the agency committees.

[arees]

I also believe that this is a bad bill.  It amounts to a ban on purchasing more state land.  These types of land purchases can already be pushed into using a 3rd party conservation organization to put down money to hold the land while the government scrapes money together.  This will just make it more difficult to the point that it is unlikely to occur.

See, I can agree with Bigtex on a piece of legislation.

[bigtex]

I also believe that this is a bad bill.  It amounts to a ban on purchasing more state land.  These types of land purchases can already be pushed into using a 3rd party conservation organization to put down money to hold the land while the government scrapes money together.  This will just make it more difficult to the point that it is unlikely to occur.

See, I can agree with Bigtex on a piece of legislation.

We agree? 

In terms of WDFW acquisitions very rarely are WDFW funds used to purchase the lands, its actually usually federal funds.

[dreamunelk]

Very bad bill.

[bigtex]

EVERYONE needs to contact their legislators in Olympia regarding this issue. Especially in the HOUSE where the bill is now in, the bill already passed the Seante.

[Northway]

I'm going to voice my opposition to this bill.