Public Lands in the Legislature - A Tale of Two Amendments
UPDATE 2/24/26: On Monday, February 23, House Joint Resolution 10 - a proposed constitutional amendment that would have updated the mandate for Idaho's 2.5 million acres of endowment land from a pure focus on financial returns to prioritizing income generation and activities such as hunting and fishing access over sale of the land - died in the House State Affairs Committee in a tie 7-7 vote. Given the amendment's potential to help insulate land where Idahoans hunt and fish from future sale, IWF was in support of this legislation.
IWF would like to thank Representative Raybould (District 34) and Representative Petzke (District 21) for working towards long-term access for hunting and fishing with HJR 10. We look forward to collaborating on future efforts in support of our shared outdoor heritage.
Idaho’s Constitution doesn’t change often, but when it does, it usually means something big is at stake.
This legislative session, lawmakers are considering two constitutional amendments - HJR008 and SJR103 - that could shape the future of public lands in Idaho for generations. While they may appear technical, together they reflect two different approaches to stewardship, access, and the long-term legacy of the lands Idahoans rely on for work, wildlife, and recreation.
So why do Constitutional amendments matter? Well, most bills passed during a legislative session can be revisited, revised, or repealed in future years. Constitutional amendments are different. They are lasting, foundational, and harder to undo. If approved by the required ⅔ of the Legislature and subsequently by a majority of voters on the November ballot, these amendments would permanently shape how our state thinks about land management.
House Joint Resolution 008 (HJR008) focuses on the way Idaho manages its state endowment lands, or the 2.5 million acres of land managed by the Idaho Department of Lands.
These lands were granted to Idaho at statehood to help fund public institutions like schools. For decades, the Idaho Constitution has required that these lands be managed primarily to achieve the maximum financial return for their beneficiaries. That mandate has shaped land decisions for generations, including sizable land sales. While large scale land sales have been comparatively rare in recent years, Idaho was originally granted 3.6 million acres of land at statehood and has sold over a million acres since that time.
HJR008 proposes to modernize that approach by removing the strict “maximum return” requirement and replacing it with broader management priorities. Under this amendment, the state would still generate revenue from endowment lands, but it would place greater emphasis on long-term, sustainable revenue, ongoing productivity through grazing, timber, and leasing, and importantly, prioritizing public access for recreation and recognizing the value of hunting, fishing, trapping, and outdoor opportunities. These uses would be prioritized over the sale of the land.
In other words, HJR008 reflects a shift from treating state lands purely as financial assets toward managing them as working landscapes with multiple public values. As it stands now, if a potential buyer comes in with a good enough offer for a parcel of endowment lands, the Land Board is in many ways constitutionally obligated to sell that land. This amendment would give land managers more flexibility and help prevent the loss of lands that are important not just economically, but culturally. Places where Idahoans hunt, fish, hike, and enjoy recreating.
Senate Joint Resolution 103 (SJR103) looks forward toward what happens if Idaho ever acquires additional lands from the federal government in the future, either through transfer or sale.
This amendment would create a new constitutional framework for those potential lands, placing them into a public lands trust. SJR103 proposes that any lands Idaho receives from the federal government would be held permanently in a trust and thus protected from sale, ultimately requiring approval of ⅔ of the Legislature for land exchanges. It would be managed for public purposes including recreation, resource use, and habitat, and generate revenue first for land management, then for county support and public access improvements.
Unlike HJR008, which introduces more flexibility in management priorities for the 2.5 million acres currently managed by the Idaho Department of Lands, SJR103 is about permanence and protection of any future lands transferred to or acquired by the State of Idaho from the federal government. Remember the public land debates that happened this summer? This would lock in rules before future land debates even begin. It’s a forward-looking amendment.
Pros and Cons
While providing safeguards against selling land where Idahoans hunt, fish, and recreate is an undeniable positive, a proposed constitutional amendment that contemplates the transfer of federal lands to the states inherently raises the question of whether passage of the amendment would provide an on-ramp for encouraging such a transfer. For many reasons, the enormous costs of management (particularly fire management costs) being the most significant, federal transfer of lands to the states at a large scale would be highly damaging to our outdoor traditions. Idaho, to put it simply, could not afford the costs. While neither of these amendments calls for transfer, that discussion is bound to swirl around the narrative as these bills are considered. Both amendments discuss the concept - while it is the primary focus of SJR103, there is also language around this subject in HJR008.
Continuing the Conversation
Reasonable people can come to different conclusions, and these amendments deserve thoughtful discussion beyond the Statehouse. For those interested in learning more, The Ranch Podcast has hosted several conversations with the Idaho policymakers sponsoring these amendments, exploring Idaho land, growth, and stewardship:
HJR008
SJR103:
These conversations don’t provide a single “right” answer, but they do highlight just how much is at stake when Idaho considers writing land policy into the Constitution.
Why It Matters
For many Idahoans, public lands aren’t abstract. Across the West, we’ve seen that when land is sold, access can be lost forever, and when land is protected, opportunity remains. As Idaho grows and pressures increase, these two amendments represent different visions for how we manage and safeguard the landscapes that define our state. The choices made now will shape Idaho’s outdoor future for generations to come.
