Make an NSA designation bill about "no land trades" and nothing
else
By Carl Jackson, Editor Sedona.biz
SEDONA, AZ (November
19, 2009) - Who in Sedona wouldn't want to prevent our precious
forest land from being traded for private land in, say, West Virginia
that the Forest Service wants to get its hands on?
It's so simple, so obvious.
That's what the proposed NSA designation is supposed to achieve; stop land trades like that and make it law through a Congressional
Act
so that sleazy politicians can't make back room land-trade deals.
Although Amendment 12 to the Forest Service Management Plan already
prohibits forest service land trades in our area, NSA supporters say that
the plan is periodically reviewed and could always be changed.
That makes sense, sort of, but a Congressional designation certainly
couldn't hurt, could it?
As an added benefit, tourist maps with "National Scenic Area" printed
in bold type over 160,000 acres of forest land in and around Sedona
would help drive more tourists to our area.
I think most people do and that's one of the reasons Mayor
Rob Adams has been a strong NSA supporter, keeping his campaign
promise to represent the interests of Sedona residents.
Keep Sedona Beautiful has also been one of the strongest advocates for "no
land trades" for years for Sedona, sticking squarely by its mission
"to preserve the unique natural environment and to enhance the quality of life for future generations."
Lately, the Democrats of the Red Rocks have become more vocal and
involved, helping solicit the support of Representative Ann Kirkpatrick
(D-AZ).
At an
October 7, 2009 Sedona City Council meeting, the council was asked
to approve a letter to Kirkpatrick's office in support of an NSA
designation. At the time, her office had not yet come out with its language for its own proposed NSA designation bill, so there was nothing
for the council to review.
When Councilor Nancy Scagnelli said that she couldn't vote in favor
of a letter of support for an NSA designation without reviewing
the language first, NSA supporters were outraged. After all, they
said, the
council wasn't being asked to draft the bill, just support the concept.
In an Oct 9, 2009 Sedona.biz article we wrote, "After four hours of listening to public
input and discussion, the council voted 7-0 to authorize the mayor to
send a letter to Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick (D - District 1) informing her
that the council approves the land trade provisions of Amendment 12 of
the Forest Service Management Plan barring land trades outside Sedona
boundaries and the council will not vote to support or oppose the
NSA designation until it receives a draft of NSA legislation for
Sedona."
I don't think the council would have voted 7-0 if Councilor Scagnelli's
thinking was out in left field, do you?
Truth be told, Councilor Scagnelli has said for years that she is
concerned about the "unintended consequences" of an NSA designation.
Would it prevent municipal roads or sewer lines or whatever from being
built on forest service land? And what would happen to any
proposed language once it got to Congress? Would it be twisted and
changed not to our liking?
However, upon my reading of the bill, I was confused. The
section on "no land trades" was blank, except two right and left
brackets.
Blank? "Isn't this whole bill supposed to be about 'no land
trades'?," I thought.
The stated objective of Kirkpatrick's bill is "protecting and preserving the
scenic quality and natural resources of the Scenic Area; and restoring
and enhancing the natural and historic values of the Scenic Area."
The draft bill also talks about how to handle wildfire suppression and
the control of insects and disease in the Scenic Area; that the Forest
Service will continue to manage the Coconino National Forest as it
currently does under the Coconino National Forest Land and Resource
Plan; that local municipalities, counties, and fire and school districts can
continue to seek to use the Scenic Area land for local infrastructure
needs; and that the creation of the Scenic Area does not in any way affect
existing water rights.
There is also a provision allowing the Chapel of the Holy Cross to
purchase the forest land it currently leases from the Forest Service at
market rates, and that the Forest Service can use the money to acquire
land within the Scenic Area.
Pretty good, except that I thought that the bill was about "no land
trades."
Prior to the November 18, 2009 Sedona City Council meeting to discuss
Kirkpatrick's bill, interested stakeholders worked with the Sedona city
staff to draft "no trade" language and to address any outstanding
concerns raised by the proposed bill.
"Okay," I thought, "They're going to propose the "no trade" language,
which is a no brainer; all the bill says is it wants to preserve and
protect the scenic quality of the Scenic Area, and the Forest Service is
going to get boat loads of money from the Roman Catholic Church, the
owner of the Chapel of the Holy Cross, that it can use to
acquire land within the Scenic Area."
I was now confident that the council would approve a letter in support of
the NSA.
Then, at last night's city council meeting, concerned citizens
started coming out of the woodwork in droves.
One of the first speakers asked what "preserve and protect" means?
Does it mean that the Forest Service can't build recreational areas and new
hiking trails on the NSA land?
Does it mean there will be litigation every time someone wants to do
something on the NSA land because no one has properly defined
"preserve and protect"?
Hmmm. Good points. My stomach started to feel a bit
queasy.
Others asked whether the NSA land could be used for
schools and roads? Although the bill says that municipalities,
fire districts, and schools districts can continue to seek to use
the NSA land for local infrastructure, how much use would go
against the words "preserve and protect"?
Ugh. That's troubling.
Potential city council candidate Jerry Frey asked if the private land
he owns within the proposed NSA land would effectively be land-locked?
Yeah, what about that?
One speaker said that there have been situations where activity
outside of an NSA area was stopped because it might harm the NSA area.
I don't think that Cottonwood will be building a smoke-stack spewing
manufacturing plant next to the NSA area anytime soon, but the comment
gave me pause.
What kinds of activities next to NSA land might be prohibited?
The Sedona Fire District asked that the language on fire suppression
be removed from the draft bill. Does it mean they can't drag their fire
hoses in because it might hurt the vegetation and go against the
definition of "preserve and protect"?
Ugh, again.
Then a speaker for Native Americans came to the podium. Turns
out the land that the Chapel of the Holy Cross sits on is sacred Indian
land. If the Roman Catholic Church buys it, does that mean it
can't perform Native American ceremonies on the land anymore? Is
it right that federal Forest Land is sold to a religious institution?
Also turns out that there is no private land that the Forest Service
really wants to acquire in the NSA area, so what will they do with all
that money?
Where's the Pepto-Bismol?
For about 3 hours the city council worked with city staff to
word-smith the proposed NSA bill's language to address these concerns
and others.
When Mayor Rob Adams said that the purpose of the meeting was only to
rework the bill's proposed language and nothing more,
I scratched my head?
Did the city council already say they were in support of an NSA
designation, and I missed it? Was the evening only about coming up
with final language?
I looked back at our Sedona.biz prior article from the last council
meeting on the NSA: "... the council will not vote to support or oppose the
NSA designation until it receives a draft of NSA legislation for
Sedona."
Coming up with final language for the NSA bill, in my mind, didn't
mean that the council had already voted to support it. Working on
the NSA language would be the next step, followed by a final vote, I
thought.
When Councilor Scagnelli made a motion at the 11th hour to
vote down support for the NSA legislation, the room went wild.
According to Mayor Adams, Councilor Scagnelli was using the same 11th
hours tactics that she used when voting for continuous lighting on 89A.
Suffice it to say, it got ugly.
In my mind, Councilor Scagnelli had every right to
do what she did. She said that reworking the NSA language was not
for naught because she proposed that the council's version be submitted
to Kirkpatrick's office as the language the council supports should
Kirkpatrick propose an NSA bill to Congress.
But Councilor Scagnelli made it clear that she wanted the council to vote
against an NSA designation.
If she wasn't allowed to make the motion, wouldn't Sedona's legal
council, Mike Goimarac, have said so?
If she was wrong in her thinking, would her motion have been
supported in a 4-2 vote?
Councilor DiNunzio raised another concern in his vote in support of
Councilor Scagnelli's motion. He said he generally supported an
NSA designation, but what if the bill they had reworked was sent to
Congress, and Congress decided to amend it in a manner that the city
didn't like? What then? It would be federal law.
Yeah, what then?
It was at that moment that I was happy to have our democratic process
of checks and balances and, frankly, that Councilor Scagnelli stood up to some pretty intense public outrage. I was also happy that a
group of citizens came out to voice their concerns.
If the NSA supporters, like me, want the city council to support an
NSA bill, make sure it's clear, concise, and unambiguous.
And if the bill is supposed to be about "no land trades" make sure
that's all it's about.
Readers' comments
#1 Thank you, Carl, for a thoughtful and
balanced discussion of an important issue.
At times the Sedona community seems unable
to accept the possibility of disagreeing
without being disagreeable. Your central
point the way I took it was that we all
agree on an ultimate objective- protection
of our natural resource and its beauty-
without necessarily agreeing on how this
should be achieved. Alternatives each come
with their own costs, be they economic
development or what. It becomes a matter of
balance, which may require compromise,
another concept not easily understood it
seems here in Sedona. How else to seek a
win-win solution to a common concern? It
will not come about by vilifying those you
disagree with on means even though you could
be partners on ends.
#2 Thank you, Carl. Well said!
#3 As a 24 year resident who treasures the
scenic beauty of Sedona, I was concerned by
the points you raised regarding fuzzy,
unclear language affecting what we will and
won't be able to do. NSA designation has
been touted on the obvious - protection. Who
doesn't support that? Yet, the devil is in
the details, esp.language.
Why can't we believe in the people of Sedona
and the existing Amendment 12 to continue to
speak up and protect this land? I am deeply
concerned about, as Councilwoman Scagnelli
stated, unintended consequences. Thank you,
Carl, for this article.
#4 Councilor Nancy Scagnelli made a motion
that #1, she had a right to make, regardless
of the Mayor's attempt to slam down his
gavel and end all further discussion, and #2
was fair and reasonable in light of all that
was heard that night and the motion required
that all their changes and comments for any
bill be forwarded to Congresswoman
Kirkpatrick. What the heck is wrong with
that? If you stand back and honestly look at
all the surprises and quirks that were
brought forward and exposed about unknown
facts (13 acres at Slide Rock that Forest
Service wants RID of, a requirement that the
Catholic Church MUST buy 11 acres within 6
months!, stipulations on the local Fire
District on fire fighting?, etc. etc.) you
begin to see that just waving your hand and
creating an NSA is not simple. And the
actual back and forth adding, gutting,
amending that occurred at the Council
meeting for 3 hours is NOTHING compared to
what lobbyists in Washington DC will do. I
hope no one is so naive as to think it won't
be otherwise. Folks, attorneys and lobbyists
do this professionally all day long, 365
days a year back there. The Coconino Forest
Plan has stopped land trades totally since
adopted. Keep it and ONLY it. When it comes
to Federal government, be careful what you
wish for.
# 5 Thank goodness that Councilwoman Nancy
Scagnelli has the courage of her
convictions! There are way too many unknowns
that could happen by the time Congress was
finished with any legislation that may occur
for this NSA designation. Let's not all lose
sight of the fact that the Forest Management
plan is functioning quite nicely under the
auspices of a very responsible Ranger and
staff of the Red Rock District. Good for
you, Nancy!
#7 Carl,
Thank you for standing up for Councilwoman
Scagnelli's right to make a motion to reject
the NSA designation. Your words are always
appreciated when our community seems to
polarize itself on issues.
The concerns of the council are justified.
If anyone wants to think that this offering
by Rep. Kirkpatrick will remain what the
Council amended, think again. Take a look at
the healthcare bill submitted by the House
to the Senate.
Thank you, Council, for not giving your
stamp of approval to the document. The
reality is that the NSA designation would
bring about inflexibility within our
community. Do we really need the federal
government telling us how we govern
ourselves?
Kathy Howe
Proud to include my name in my commentary. I
just wish others would come out from behind
the cloak of anonymity.
#8 A good ,balanced writeup!
Every year, Congress adds thousands of
non-controversial riders to bills going
through Congress with little or no debate. I
think you are right in saying a simple
straight-forward statement (current language
of Coconino NF Plan) dealing with land
exchange would be non-controversial and
could easily be added as a rider to a
non-related natural resource bill going
through Congress. Representative Kirkpatrick
could declare victory and say this has been
FS policy for 15 years, it works well, and
there is general agreement by the local
people. We just want to put into law what
has been FS policy for 15 years and is well
supported.
The problem is that trying to accomplish
this with a NSA is that it carries a lot of
baggage. NSA's are always controversial
because, in all other cases, it involves
some degree of Federal control over the
development of private land. Hence, in our
case, we have to add so many provisions to
say that it is not a typical NSA.
The only reason that I can see a need for a
NSA is if it could be used as a marketing
tool to get more people coming to Sedona and
spending their money to boost our economy.
#9 Thank you for synthesizing the NSA issues
into a single, concise statement. It has
always been about protection from land
trades. And thank you to Councilor Scagnelli
for representing the people who elected her
to make the tough calls. She obviously
studied the issues, interviewed professional
with expertise and experience, and
articulated her position well, at least as I
observed on the video. She's the leader
Sedona now needs. She's not always
campaigning to be well liked or stirring up
support for her personal convictions. I'd
like to call for Scagnelli for Mayor. The
current mayor's lack of leadership skills on
the council as well as continued verbalized
disdain for fellow councilors has
perpetuated the division in the community. A
true leader listens to sides, all sides,
assimilates that input with the data and
enables the representatives on the dais to
vote their conscience. And then--embraces
the decision of the majority to move on.
It's time to settle down in Sedona.
#10 For the most part, I agree with Carl’s
opinions in his article. He does a service
to the community by allowing true freedom of
speech, and allowing both sides of the
debate. However, the assumption that
everyone is in favor of preventing land
trades in Sedona is misguided, in my
opinion.
Make no mistake about it; there are those
commercial interests in the Sedona/Phoenix
commercial corridor who would turn Sedona
into Scottsdale North if they could. I am
not making a moral judgment about their
intentions—just stating an opinion. For
them, the debate over “unintended
consequences” of the NSA legislation is a
strategic move to prevent the legislation
from being drafted so that further trades
can be implemented, and further development
of the National Forest around Sedona can
occur. This is a smart move strategically.
I was told by a reliable and responsible
government official in good faith during a
conversation about five years ago that, in
their opinion, Soldier Wash would eventually
be developed. The government official was
simply trying to be candid and helpful at
the time, and was stating an opinion.
Obviously many things have changed since
then, and the government official may have a
completely different opinion at the time.
However, the conversation back then
underlies how vulnerable to land trades the
Sedona area remains, and how unpredictable
the issue truly is.
Let's start being completely honest about
the issue and admit there are stakeholders
who want land trades to occur, so that areas
like Soldier Wash can be developed. Again, I
am not making a moral judgement against
those who would like to see land trades and
further development. I am only asking for a
completely honest debate.
In fact, if the City of Sedona were to a)
develop a Master Plan based on a systems
approach, that included meaningful and
formalized public participation, and a
rigorous environmental and social impact
analysis; and b) the resulting Master Plan
favored significant additional development
and land trades for the long-term welfare of
the community, I would support the action.
But that approach is not happening.
Ron Vernesoni
#11 Come on, now. If anyone thinks Congress
is going to "tinker" with the NSA bill,
you're fooling yourself. This is an
insignificant piece of legislation as far as
the rest of the country is concerned. It's a
local thing -- without a significant outlay
of dollars. In those cases, Congress most
assuredly will defer to the wishes of the
local Representative.
Also, people are really getting way too
worked up about the "unintended
consequences." The federal NSA office is
located in a back-room cubicle in a
far-flung sector of the Department of
Agriculture. The guy in charge doesn't have
much to do. Believe me, this thing is as
harmless as we want to make it.
#12 HERE IS SOMETHING TO CHEW ON:
No one is talking about the RUSKIN LAND
TRADE. One of the largest land trades in the
history of Arizona that greatly impacted the
Verde Valley. THOUSANDS OF ACRES TRADED.
How did this happen? It came from Washington
and totally bypassed the Verde Valley until
watchful eyes screamed loud enough but by
then it was too late. It had been brewing
for many years.
How many other ideas like this are already
"brewing" on someone's desk in Washington?
We do not know.
So, if you are really worried about
government taking control of what happens
here - the only logical way to prevent it is
to have a transparent NSA. Then "they" know
they have to keep their fingers out of the
pie.
The current Forest Service Plan can change
at anytime - by the same people who brought
us the RUSKIN LAND TRADE - no doubt about
it. If you are naive enough to think we are
really running the show about protecting our
national forest without the NSA - remember
the RUSKIN LAND TRADE - and if you don't
know what it is - you might want to find
out-----
#13 Comment in response to #12 above
followed by Mayor Adams Response:
#12, your comment is exactly what my
editorial is about: no land trades.
However, the language that was negotiated
for 3 hours was about everything but "no
land trades."
KSB, DORR etc. have been saying from the
beginning that the NSA bill was about "no
land trades."
Kirkpatrick's bill came out and there were
no public forums to vet it. Instead, it
went right to city council for a 3 hour
defacto "public forum" where the public
heard about a host of concerns unrelated to
"no land trades."
How did that happen?
Best,
Carl Jackson
From Mayor Adams:
After Ann
Kirkpatrick requested input on the NSA
legislation, the City sent out letters to
over 15 stakeholders, including business owners,
environmental groups, Forest Service
representatives, utility companies and the
school district. Staff met with many of these
groups to vet the language in the bill prior to
the Council meeting. The draft that was
presented to Council on the 18th was the result
of an extensive collaborative public effort to
address the concerns of the various stakeholders
in regards to the language and "unintended
consequences" of the bill.
When we (the
Councilmembers) reviewed the bill on Nov.
18th, a vast majority of the time was
spent addressing the components of the bill that
were superfluous to the issue of land trades.
Frankly, I was surprised that after the vetting
by the various groups, issues like fire
suppression, insect control and water issues
were still in the bill. I thought the audience
did a good job of pointing this out and Council
responded by eliminating most of this
unnecessary language. The result of the Council
session was a vastly pared down bill that dealt
almost exclusively with "no land trades."
It is important to
remember that the original bill that was sent
out by Kirkpatrick was quite simple as far as
bills go. After the public process (which has
been ongoing since August) and the final vetting
by the stakeholders and Council, the bill was
almost entirely focused on "no land trades".
We need to remember
that this will not be the final version of the
bill. This is simply what Kirkpatrick asked for;
our recommendations and input on an NSA bill.
When she reviews this input along with all of
the other input that she will receive, she will
redraft the bill and submit it for additional
review.
We
are acting like we (in Sedona) are the end all
authority on what the final version of the bill
will be. That is simply not the case. We are a
part of an ongoing process and everyone is
getting the opportunity to be heard. I believe
that the end result will accomplish what we all
desire; NO LAND TRADES, permanently.
Best Regards,
Rob
#14 This
whole NSA issue has been inflamed by the
usual scare tactics of a small minority of
Sedona stakeholders. The threat of what ifs,
unintended consequences and more bureaucracy
for the now protected 160,000 acres of
surrounding National Forests are unfounded.
Most of the ‘annoying wording’ (to the
minority) came directly from Amendment 12.
Amendment 12 is more secure than the same
wording being folded into a Forest Service
Plan due out soon – including the lands the
Forest service desires or is willing to part
with (Chapel). As Christine notes with the
Ruskin Land Trade, the ultimate Forest Plan
could be easily amended for a land trade by
higher (Washington DC) power for bigger
vested interests. Maybe this possibility is
the point of the naysayers at the moment.
Further suggestions from this minority that
the present Amendment 12 boundaries are “too
big” only reinforces my previous statement.
Because the NSA Bill does not have money
attached, it probably will not be ‘tinkered’
with through the legislative process.
However, Sierra Club leaves nothing to
chance and neither did a former Sedona City
Council which voted $15,000 for the NSA
lobbying process a few years ago. When I
spoke at the October City Council supporting
the NSA, I mentioned that our entire 14,000
member Arizona Grand Canyon Chapter supports
the NSA designation. With that support comes
national Sierra Club Washington DC lobbying
assistance to protect the integrity of the
final NSA Bill as it moves through the
congressional process.
Marlene Rayner
Chair, Sierra Club Sedona-Verde Valley Group
#15 RE: #14 Yeah, you betcha, now I'll sleep
a WHOLE lot better knowing the National
Sierra Club in Washington, D.C. will be
working on this. With $15,000 approved by a
previous city council?? I think citizens can
see where this is going--special interests
groups will re-write the NSA to protect us.
#16 Well put Carl. I agree the issue is
protecting the surrounding national forest
from land trades. I agree wholeheartedly
with many of the reader comments here,
especially writer #1. This is an important
issue and requires careful consideration,
compromise and balancing all perspectives
and options.
The NSA concept needs further discussion and
consideration. Lets get the real leaders of
the Sierra Club (state/national), not the
local self appointed representatives, and A.
Kirkpatrick at the table. Lets talk about
the pros and cons of a NSA bill, the
realities of how it may change as it goes to
Washington, what issues should be included
in a proposed bill and explore other
possible options to protect Sedona's
surrounding national forest lands.
I believe we all want the same thing, lets
start working together rather than against
each other.
A good leader builds consensus not division.
Mayor Adams' behavior at Wednesday's NSA
meeting was embarrassing and childish.
I applaud Councilwoman Scagnelli for her
wisdom, bravery and leadership skills and
the other council members who followed her
example.
Respectfully, S. Alexandera
#17 In reply to #15, noone is being divisive
here. The coalition has attempted to work
with all interests in public meetings and
definitely sees all points of view.
I am duly elected Chair of this 500 member
Sierra Group which is part of the greater
Arizona Grand Canyon Chapter of the Sierra
Club (14,000 members). The Chapter has
already voted to support the NSA Bill. Our
Chapter Director, who is very knowlegeable
on Bill writing, has been here in Sedona and
discussed this NSA issue in an open public
meeting; she has also been at Kirkpatrick's
office to discuss the Bill. Our Chapter has
also authorized and obtained national Sierra
people to help us follow the Bill through
Committee once it is finished. Both State
and National Sierra have advised us on the
draft Bill wording, which the 'coalition'
worked out and has emailed to Kirkpatrick's
office. We expect another round of
discussions when we see Kirkpatrick's next
version of the Bill.
This further discussion asked for by #15
reminds me of the present health care debate
and the opposition saying "Let us start
over" - again. Ann Kirkpatrick did start
over again and asked for input from us all.
Please participate in democracy and write
your comments to her by Dec 1, 2009.
Marlene Rayner
Readers' Comments
SEDONA.BIZ COMMENTS: We have added a new way to post comments. You can post as a guest (the name you type-in will be displayed), you can login using your Twitter account login info, or you can sign up at Disqus.
To comment as a GUEST, type your comment, name, and
email. (only the name will be displayed).
Click on POST AS GUEST. If you have trouble posting, email editor@sedona.biz, and we'll help.