Should money from the Clean Water, Land and Legacy Amendment be used to buy more land, including public hunting lands?
It's a key question being hotly debated at the State Capitol.
When the amendment was approved by voters in 2008, many supporters -- including hunters -- believed some of the millions of dollars it raised would be used to acquire critical lands as part of the amendment's "protect, enhance and restore" mandate. The amendment says that any lands bought with the money must be open to the public to hunt and fish.
And so far, that has happened.
Of the $144 million Legacy dollars spent for fish and wildlife habitat, $23 million, or 16 percent, has been spent to buy state lands -- often wildlife management areas. The Lessard-Sams Outdoor Heritage Council (LSOHC) recommends how one-third of the revenue raised by the Legacy Amendment should be spent on fish and wildlife habitat.
This year, of the $86 million available, the council has recommended the Legislature spend about $26 million -- 36 percent -- to buy land that would be owned by the state and open for public hunting and other recreation.
But this year there is concern in the Republican-controlled Legislature about buying more land. Part of it is philosophical: Some legislators think the state simply has enough land. And part of it is because the state must pay counties payment in lieu of taxes for lands removed from tax rolls, and it also must pay long-term management costs.
A bill introduced by Rep. Steve Drazkowski, R-Mazeppa, calls for no net increase in state lands. If it became law, the state could only acquire land if it sold an equal amount of existing state land.
