ST. GEORGE — Utah seeks to curb activity that prioritizes conservation on public land with a recently passed bill.
The public land use amendments bill, designated HB 496 in the 2024 Legislature, requires the Public Lands Policy Coordinating Office to recognize and promote multiple uses and sustained yields on federal public lands in Utah while opposing conservation as a use equal to recreation, grazing and others.
Additionally, it prohibits natural asset companies from purchasing or leasing state public lands, owning or managing conservation leases, and purchasing or leasing ecosystem services.
Rep. Carl Albrecht sponsored the bill, which he drafted in collaboration with the Public Lands Policy Coordinating Office and Utah State Treasurer Marlo Oaks. The bill’s co-sponsor, Sen. Heidi Balderree, said it would not prevent natural asset companies from conducting business on private land.
Natural asset companies are the brainchild of the Intrinsic Exchange Group, a “financial innovation company with a mission to enable sustainable, market-based solutions to some of our most intractable problems,” according to its website.
To allow for “nature positive investment,” the company created natural asset companies, which can be formed by governments, private property owners, farmers and ranchers, and corporations, among others.
The New York Stock Exchange submitted and later withdrew a rule change proposal to the Securities and Exchange Commission to recognize natural asset companies as a new tradable asset class.
The new class of security would be designed to maximize the value of the land’s ecosystem services — natural processes that benefit humans. Services could include noncommercial recreation benefits, photosynthesis and natural water purification processes, according to the Intrinsic Exchange Group.
Albrecht told St. George News part of his concern stems from the Bureau of Land Management’s proposed public lands rule, which he described as a “land grab.”
The rule would include conservation as a use on par with others, such as recreation, mining and grazing. It would authorize conservation leases, which Albrecht said natural asset companies could use to prevent multiple uses on certain parcels.
“That would lock up that land, really,” he said.
While the bill defines a conservation lease as restricting the use of land for the “primary purpose of preserving or protecting the land” or its natural resources while prohibiting the extraction of said resources, the BLM’s definition differs in some significant ways.
The agency states on its website that conservation leases would be approved at the BLM’s discretion, using feedback from states, developers and other stakeholders. And leases must be consistent with valid existing rights and would not override them.
“The proposal does not change the BLM’s multiple use mission — indeed, it would ensure the BLM’s ability to deliver it in the future,” the bureau states. “Energy development, mining, grazing, timber, outdoor recreation, and other uses will continue. … The proposal would not change the existing land management planning process; rather, it would create more opportunity and tools for local communities to shape the management of their public lands.”
At the House Natural Resources, Agriculture and Environment Committee, Caitlin Curry, vice chair of the Utah Chapter of Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, said that while they didn’t wish to take a position on the bill, one aspect “challenged” them.
Curry said language directed at the BLM’s proposed rule and opposing conservation as an equal use of public land should be removed.
“We’ve been supportive of the BLM public lands rule and are optimistic of its ability to improve habitat on BLM lands for wildlife while also coexisting with current uses,” she said. “We don’t believe this language in these lines is representative of the sentiment of the hunting and angling community.”
Rep. Walt Brooks, who represents District 75 in Washington County, suggested an amendment, asking: “Would it be more clear to say conservation leases? Because I think everyone in this room — we want to conserve.” This proposal ultimately failed.
During the Feb. 23 House hearing, Rep. Phil Lyman, who represents Southern Utah’s District 69, spoke in favor of the bill.
“As the good sponsor said, the SEC rule was pulled, but the natural asset companies are still very much alive and well, if not in the private sector, in the public sector,” he said. “And the private sector is still working on ways to figure out how to monetize the entire planet.”
The bill passed the House 62 to 4, with nine not voting. Yea votes included Southern Utah representatives Brooks, Lyman, Rex Shipp, R. Neil Walter, Joseph Elison and Colin Jack.
The Senate also passed the bill with 20 in favor, four against and five not voting. Southern Utah senators Don Ipson, Derrin Owens and Evan Vickers were among the yea votes.
The governor has not yet signed the bill.
Check out all of St. George News’ coverage of the 2024 Utah Legislature by clicking here.
Copyright St. George News, SaintGeorgeUtah.com LLC, 2024, all rights reserved.