In a gambit that could see Wyoming’s 640 acre Kelly Parcel protected from development through a sale to Grand Teton National Park, Wyoming will consider using the proceeds to buy $162 million worth of federal Bureau of Land Management acreage in the Powder River Basin.
The State Loan and Investment Board should “begin a process to identify federal lands within the Powder River Basin for acquisition,” a memo from the acting director of the Office of State Lands and Investments recommends. Acting director Jason Crowder further recommended that the board authorize him to initiate “a land acquisition process” with the BLM.
Wyoming’s top five elected officials, Gov. Mark Gordon, Secretary of State Chuck Gray, Treasurer Curt Meyer, Auditor Kristi Racines and Superintendent of Public Instruction Megan Degenfelder, meet as the State Loan and Investment Board at 8 a.m. Thursday. They are scheduled to consider Crowder’s recommendation at that time.
Upon conclusion of that meeting, the same five officials are scheduled to reconvene as the State Board of Land Commissioners to consider the sale of the 640 acre Kelly Parcel, located inside Grand Teton National Park, to the park.
“The amount available for a purchase of federal land would be $162,002,000.”
Jason Crowder
The $162 million would come from the proposed $100 million Kelly Parcel sale and three already completed sales of other Wyoming school trust parcels in Grand Teton.
Purchase of federal Powder River property would curry a burr from under the state’s saddle; Wyoming politicians have long been chaffed by the federal government’s ownership of 48% of the state’s land.
Selling yet more — the Kelly Parcel — to the feds would aggravate that itch. Superintendent Degenfelder this week questioned why Wyoming would sell its 640 acres near Kelly instead of exchanging it for federal Powder River property.
At issue now is whether an effort to buy federal Powder River property would placate Degenfelder and other critics of the effort to incorporate the Kelly Parcel into Grand Teton where it would be conserved.
A ‘permissible investment’
Crowder’s memo — part of the Loan and Investment Board agenda and meeting materials — suggests that pursuing federal land in the Powder River Basin is a “permissible investment” under state law.
When deemed beneficial to trustees of state trust lands — principally school children — “the state treasurer shall invest funds received from the sale of state trust lands to the federal government by purchasing federal lands and improvements within Wyoming from the federal government,” the statute reads.
The board must find that buying federal Powder River land is “consistent with the duties and obligations owed to the beneficiaries of … state trust land.” Upon that finding, the board could use that money to try to buy federal property.
“[S]hould the Kelly Parcel be sold to the federal government pursuant to House Enrolled Act No. 50, the amount available for a purchase of federal land would be … $162,002,000,” Crowder wrote.
Wyoming sold a 40 acre state inholding in Grand Teton to the federal government in 2012 for $2 million. It sold 86 acres to the feds in 2013 for $16 million and the 640 acre Antelope Flats school section in 2016 for $46 million.
All the sales were outlined in agreements with the U.S. Department of the Interior hammered out in 2010 and revised in 2014, according to Crowder’s summary of the issue.
Adding those figures to the Kelly Parcel price brings the total to Crowder’s $162 million.
In a statement questioning the state sale to Grand Teton earlier this week, a transaction that could be all but completed at Thursday’s meeting, Degenfelder said she has been leading a task force that was focused on using the Kelly Parcel as a chip in a land exchange.
“The task force has identified well over 100,000 acres that could be acquired in the exchange for the 640 acre Kelly Parcel,” Degenfelder’s statement read. An exchange would preserve the Kelly Parcel while also “giving us ownership of developable lands that could produce income for generations to come.”
Value underground
There’s a vast amount of natural-resource wealth in the Powder River Basin, in the form of oil, natural gas and coal. The region is the nation’s single largest supplier of coal — a commodity that has served as Wyoming’s economic pillar for decades.
Though there are still mountains of coal underground there, it is quickly losing its value.
Powder River Basin coal is only profitable if it is mined at scale, which is why two of the largest coal mines in North America are located there. The operator of one of those mines, Arch Resources, made a financial decision years ago to close up its Black Thunder mine. That’s because the region’s only market is coal-burning power plants in the U.S., and utilities are retiring the nation’s fleet of coal plants without replacing them.
The demand for Powder River Basin coal is in a nosedive, declining at a rate of about 20% for the past year, according to federal data. The U.S. Bureau of Land Management also proposes to ban federal coal leasing in the area.
That means companies with existing federal leases may continue to mine their coal, but the federal government would not issue new leases.
—Dustin Bleizeffer contributed to this story
My first job after earning my graduate degree at WYO was in Gillette in 1976. At the time, the mines were just getting started. For decades, coal was the golden goose, but now the tide has turned. The Powder River Basin (PRB) and coal industry are in bust mode, and unlike oil, coal isn’t making a comeback.
Trading for PRB land, which is losing value, doesn’t seem wise. Back in my student days, I took a couple of classes with Gary Glass, who was then the State Geologist, and toured the coal mines and power plants as they were being developed. Years later, I worked at JHG and eventually transitioned to being a Contributing Photographer in Teton County, a role I held for 18 years. During that time, I was occasionally assigned to photograph School Sections that were being sold. One particular location stood out—it was situated between the Walton Ranch and the West Gros Ventre Butte, near the top, and came with some drama.
If I recall correctly, only about 4% of Teton County is privately owned; the rest is state or federally managed. Concerns about increasing government land ownership seem misplaced—that ship sailed decades ago. Selling land for a shaky investment in the PRB strikes me as completely illogical.
However, if Wyoming were to embrace solar and wind energy, that could change the equation. In the meantime, I urge you to sell the land to the park.
Here’s one idea to consider: use a small section of the land to establish a well-maintained campground specifically for summer workers. Charge an affordable fee, as these individuals would be working locally. Given the collaborative success in solving the Teton Pass issue, I’m confident all parties could come together to find another creative solution here.
“The board must find that buying federal Powder River land is ‘consistent with the duties and obligations owed to the beneficiaries of … state trust land.’ Upon that finding, the board could use that money to try to buy federal property.”
To avoid a charge of improper use of school trust land, I believe that means the acquired land/minerals become school trust assets, and all revenue derived from those assets go straight to the common school permanent land fund. Every penny.
OMG Angus — you made my day. This is the best news I have had all week, saving this gorgeous track of land is such a smart by Wyoming — good job!
Two things. Wyoming Public lands and Energy policy are NOT under the purview of the Superintendent of Public Instruction. She is a voting member of SLIB, but it is not her role to be the active author or driver of this proposal . She also needs to recuse herself from any of these discussions and decisions because of clear conflict of interest with her and her father as an Oil & Gas Executive who may stand to gain from these transactions. PRB lands will be developed if and when the economics are favorable for private industry to be profitable. It’s about markets and economics, period. State Government needs to stay out of it. Especially, the Superintendent of Public Instruction, that is NOT her job. Her focus should be to make sure that Wyoming kids are getting a quality education.
Why should the state purchase this land when it already receives 50% of the mineral income with no risk of any investment? That presumes that the BLM is willing to sell the minerals along with the surface as well as existing production. The state could be buying a pig in a poke and end up owning acreage suitable only for grazing lease income.
Counties would lose Payments in Lieu of taxes from the federal government which would surely not be replaced by the legislature.
All in all this proposal smells of a knee jerk reaction to federal land ownership where the legislature has already determined that it is a money losing proposition.
When discussing the potential purchase of Federal land in the PTB it is important to clarify that the purchase would include both surface estate and the mineral estate underneath. And, the mineral estate should include all minerals such as oil, natural gas, coal, uranium, trona, bentonite, gravel = everything. In addition, the Feds will try to reserve archaeological and paleontological resources and historical sites and trails to the Federal government – which means they could stop development citing these concerns. Wyoming must get all rights with purchases of Federal land or there will be major problems in the future.
When a deal ie Kelly parcel is done why does in the 11th hour does an uniformed superintendent throws a monkey wrench into the deal and then meetings and nonsense occur. Nobody wants to invest in coal land…not even the coal industry. 🙄
Leave our state land lay where they are and deal with lowering the cost of school districts that spend way to much money on non educational activities..
We the people shouldn’t care if our politicians don’t like federal land in the state. We are their boss, not the other way around. Put them out of a job.
Wouldn’t a transfer of lands such as this, have to have an EIS? Wouldn’t an EIS have to consider the impacts of mining and burning coal on wildlife, air quality and climate change? Isn’t the state of Wyoming putting the cart ahead of the horse?