Finchem’s Land Disposal Plan Gains Momentum from Fringe Legal Theories & Project 2025

The Arizona Senate is intensifying its push for state control over federally-owned lands, spurred by concerns over the tax base and land management. Republican Senator Mark Finchem articulated these concerns during a discussion with the Senate Federalism Committee, highlighting the potential repercussions of any loss of land.

To address this issue, Finchem sponsored Senate Concurrent Resolution 1018, a measure advocating for the transfer of federal land to state or private ownership. While the resolution holds no legal weight, it aims to signal dissatisfaction with the current management practices of the Bureau of Land Management.

The resolution suggests that inadequate federal oversight results in wasted resources, arguing that land should instead contribute to economic growth. Suggested avenues for economic use include selling or leasing the land for operations like coal mining and oil drilling. The resolution’s language reflects a belief that if land is not profitable, it is being mismanaged.

Furthermore, the resolution stands in stark opposition to former President Joe Biden’s 30×30 initiative, which seeks to conserve 30% of U.S. land and waters by 2030, viewing it as an overreach of federal power. Finchem likened this proposal to historical land confiscation practices, equating it with authoritarian regimes.

Finchem’s perspective aligns with priorities outlined in Project 2025, a blueprint for a potential future Trump administration that calls for a rollback of conservation efforts and the redistribution of federal land. It also reveals a broader ideological alignment with far-right groups advocating for similar policies.

In a recent committee meeting, rancher Daniel Martinez presented his views on land rights, asserting that the federal government lacks the authority to own land in Arizona. Martinez’s historical interpretation, however, met with skepticism among those familiar with existing laws and regulations.

His claims extended to labeling the Endangered Species Act as a mere “fraud,” mistakenly attributing debates around its legitimacy to international law, despite it being enacted by Congress in 1973. Martinez’s contentious history with federal authorities includes a lawsuit involving cattle disputes with the U.S. Forest Service, which he maintains was unjustly pursued without jurisdiction.

Opponents of Finchem’s resolution, such as advocates from Back Country Hunters and Anglers, warn that transferring federal lands could lead to privatization, limiting public access. They argue that the economic focus of state land management often overlooks recreational needs.

Sandy Bahr, director of the Grand Canyon Chapter of the Sierra Club, echoed public sentiments favoring federal land protection, citing its benefits for recreation, clean air, and local economies. The discourse surrounding land management remains contentious, pitting economic development against environmental and recreational preservation.

On a recent vote, the House Land, Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee advanced SCR1018 to the full House, reflecting a split along party lines. The Senate approved the measure similarly, indicating a coordinated effort to reshape Arizona’s land management policies.