CO slams brakes on giant land transfer from state trust to feds and CPW.

[elkduds]

Why? Could it be Polis et al are losing faith in current management and future of BLM and USFS?

A plan to sell a 46,000-acre State Land Board parcel in Colorado’s San Luis Valley could be crumbling

The Colorado State Land Board since 2017 has studied a $50 million plan to sell the 45,952-acre La Jara parcel to the Forest Service, BLM, CPW

coloradosun.com

 

[Treeshark]

My guess would be they intend to find out if they can sell it for more to private buyers.

 

[Oak]

Why? Could it be Polis et al are losing faith in current management and future of BLM and USFS?

A plan to sell a 46,000-acre State Land Board parcel in Colorado’s San Luis Valley could be crumbling

The Colorado State Land Board since 2017 has studied a $50 million plan to sell the 45,952-acre La Jara parcel to the Forest Service, BLM, CPW

coloradosun.com

As noted in the article, the use of LWCF funding restricts the federal agencies from disposing of those lands. Even in the uncertain political climate, I expect lands with those special restrictions to be low on the priority list for disposal. Maybe another private buyer entered the picture...maybe the Governor had a change of heart and wants it to be his next state park.

 

[elkduds]

As noted in the article, the use of LWCF funding restricts the federal agencies from disposing of those lands. Even in the uncertain political climate, I expect lands with those special restrictions to be low on the priority list for disposal. Maybe another private buyer entered the picture...maybe the Governor had a change of heart and wants it to be his next state park.

Glad to hear they aren't supposed to dispose of these lands, don't really trust the current admin on PLT. I was referencing poor to no management by BLM and USFS, mineral leasing. @Oak , are you thinking of a land trust as alternative buyer, or a private party?

 

[Oak]

Glad to hear they aren't supposed to dispose of these lands, don't really trust the current admin on PLT. I was referencing poor to no management by BLM and USFS, mineral leasing. @Oak , are you thinking of a land trust as alternative buyer, or a private party?

I was purely speculating about the potential for a private buyer. It would be foolhardy to give up the $45 million already committed to the acquisition if the SLB still intends to dispose of the property. I also find it odd that the SLB has directed questions to the Governor's office, which they don't typically do as an independent board.

This project has nearly zero headwinds as it has developed, until two new SLB commissioners were appointed in July. Odd.

“I’ve watched for years as the community came together and galvanized over this. I do not have one person in my community telling me please don’t let this happen,” said state Sen. Cleave Simpson, a Republican from Alamosa who also serves as the head of the Rio Grande Water Conservation District. “I don’t understand this shift at the eleventh hour after so many people have worked so hard to get here. To say you are going to turn this community on its head without any engagement and conversation or outreach, there is just an extremely high level of frustration on my part right now.”

 

[Treeshark]

This project has nearly zero headwinds as it has developed, until two new SLB commissioners were appointed in July. Odd.

Cui bono?

 

[bayoublaster7527]

Very strange situation, particularly Polis changing tune so quickly. This reeks of eco-terrorist Land Board Director Nicole Rosmarino trying to ensure Colorado sportsmen and women are locked out of this land. She is likely lining up a private purchase or lease through her wealthy “rewilding/coexistence” pals to ensure no consumptive use or public access.

Should we be writing the Land Board? I wrote them previously protesting her appointment. Did not affect much as rural voices are routinely ignored here.

 

[Oak]

Should we be writing the Land Board? I wrote them previously protesting her appointment. Did affect much as rural voices are routinely ignored here.

I was going to post the link to the SLB comment form, but it is taken down two days before the meeting (which is November 13 this month).

 

[bayoublaster7527]

I was going to post the link to the SLB comment form, but it is taken down two days before the meeting (which is November 13 this month).

Dang. Maybe reach out to Sen Bennett and Hickenlooper’s offices? Don’t know how much they can influence SLB.

Very underhanded how this is all going down.

Nicole Rosmarino- “The Mike Lee of Colorado”

 

[SAJ-99]

The article explains why. This federal government isn't interested in acquiring land if it can't be mined, logged, or drilled. The word Conservation is just like DEI to them.

The Land Board staff report said Western Rivers Conservancy advised that the federal government does not prefer to purchase land that has conservation easements or restrictions that prevent development or a future sale, “which rules out the option of protecting the land for conservation in that way.”

 

[bayoublaster7527]

The article explains why. This federal government isn't interested in acquiring land if it can't be mined, logged, or drilled. The word Conservation is just like DEI to them.

The Land Board staff report said Western Rivers Conservancy advised that the federal government does not prefer to purchase land that has conservation easements or restrictions that prevent development or a future sale, “which rules out the option of protecting the land for conservation in that way.”

USFS and BLM also have a multi-use mandate so they have to keep that in mind when acquiring land. It’s not the Feds trying to kill the land sale. If you read the actual Land Board packet there are letters of endorsement from USFS and BLM officials. If the issue is the federal government why doesn’t Rosmarino and the Land Board just come out and say it? The lack of transparency just lends more credence to the theory on a future private sale. I understand folks are concerned with current federal land management but that doesn’t mean we just sell it off to private buyers or keep it locked up as state trust land. Let’s not forget administrations change out.

We should remember Rosmarino was the Executive Director of Southern Plains Land Trust. When trusts like SPLT acquire land there is absolutely no public access- no hunting, fishing, camping, hiking, etc. Unless of course you are a wealthy donor. Very different approach from APR. That’s where I see this going and they are just using the current administration as an excuse.

 

[SAJ-99]

USFS and BLM also have a multi-use mandate so they have to keep that in mind when acquiring land. It’s not the Feds trying to kill the land sale. If you read the actual Land Board packet there are letters of endorsement from USFS and BLM officials. If the issue is the federal government why doesn’t Rosmarino and the Land Board just come out and say it? The lack of transparency just lends more credence to the theory on a future private sale. I understand folks are concerned with current federal land management but that doesn’t mean we just sell it off to private buyers or keep it locked up as state trust land.

The link to the packet didn’t work so I didn’t read it. I don’t put much weight on endorsements from USFS or BLM. I will try link again and read the details. The admin has been clear on where and what they want LWCF used for. Anyone’s concern is justified. Private sale? Seems like a stretch given the consensus built around this transaction.

 

[SAJ-99]

USFS and BLM also have a multi-use mandate so they have to keep that in mind when acquiring land. It’s not the Feds trying to kill the land sale. If you read the actual Land Board packet there are letters of endorsement from USFS and BLM officials. If the issue is the federal government why doesn’t Rosmarino and the Land Board just come out and say it? The lack of transparency just lends more credence to the theory on a future private sale. I understand folks are concerned with current federal land management but that doesn’t mean we just sell it off to private buyers or keep it locked up as state trust land. Let’s not forget administrations change out.

We should remember Rosmarino was the Executive Director of Southern Plains Land Trust. When trusts like SPLT acquire land there is absolutely no public access- no hunting, fishing, camping, hiking, etc. Unless of course you are a wealthy donor. Very different approach from APR. That’s where I see this going and they are just using the current administration as an excuse.

Found the packet. didn't read it all, of course, but got the gist of it.
Things to note:
- BLM and USFS endorsements are dated 2021. (Citing that as support for approval of the transaction today is comical)
- The board points out that current approval for funds sits with OMB, so the shutdown and all that causes basic problems. (There are also more pressing issues in Washington regarding paying for stuff. Bessent is trying to figure out how pay for the stuff the Admin wants while not setting himself up to be put in front of a judge for misappropriation of funds. I note he has a safe-haven in Argentina.)
- I also see in other areas that SPLT only listed about $20m in assets in the 2024 annual report. So they will need to dig a little deeper in the couch cushion to buy this property.

There appears to be considerable uncertainty to the Board on this now, probably from the order I link to below. The Board is concerned enough that they created two other options. None of the "new" options listed include private sale. I get where the conspiracy mind goes, but I like more solid evidence. The CO board points out that public access is "technically prohibited" as it stands currently. That would seem to make it fit the requirements of the order below. But I go back to current situation of the government trying to find money to pay for stuff and its mercurial decision-making.

For the open-minded, reading this order might help frame the situation.

SO 3442 - Land and Water Conservation Fund Implementation by the U.S. Department of the Interior | U.S. Department of the Interior

SO 3442

www.doi.gov