There have been numerous attacks on our public lands recently, and as someone born in southeastern Idaho and raised in Jefferson County, the potential fate of Camas National Wildlife Refuge is at the top of my mind. Though I am on the Friends of Camas National Wildlife Refuge Board, the statement that follows is personal and does not reflect the association.

Camas National Wildlife Refuge has senior water rights to irrigators downstream. But Sen. Van Burtenshaw of Mud Lake seeks to transfer ownership of Camas NWR to the state via Senate Joint Memorial 104, arguing this will solve alleged water issues on the Refuge.

To have a serious discussion about this issue, we need factual numbers and sound reasoning. Yet, Sen. Burtenshaw’s justification to transfer ownership of the Refuge has been inconsistent. Crucially, we must also demand transparency around the senator’s conflict of interest.

In the Senate State Affairs Committee meeting on March 12, the senator said: “We put 40,000 acre-feet of water onto that refuge. We were only able to get 10,000 out the other side.”

Camas NWR is approximately 11,000 land acres. Using Burtenshaw’s data, the entire Refuge would be under almost 4 feet of water. This brings to question how his numbers were calculated.

On March 17 on the Senate floor, Sen. Burtenshaw claimed the amount of water entering the Refuge the last nine years equals 172,577 acre-feet of water. This would change his initial number of 40,000 to approximately 19,175 acre-feet of water a year — a massive decrease.

The senator’s choice to only include figures covering the last nine years conveniently avoids two drought years from 2014-2015 when the creek barely made it to the Refuge or didn’t at all.

There is also the issue of Sen. Burtenshaw and his family owning private farmland downstream from the Refuge where he argues not enough water is reaching. State ownership would not immediately increase his personal water supply, but farmers have a disproportionate influence on state policy, and this transfer may be valuable to him later. This clear conflict of interest demands absolute transparency.

In SJM 104, Sen. Burtenshaw alleges that a Section 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is what is holding up the “cleaning” of Camas Creek. It is not evident how “cleaning” a natural creek would increase water flow. Regardless, the permitting process to “clean” would not change if ownership was given to the state and would still fall under the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

With these inaccuracies in mind then, we have to ask: What is Sen. Burtenshaw’s real motivation for wanting the state to take control of Camas NWR? Why has he not worked with U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service staff at the Refuge to address these concerns?

While factual inaccuracies about water and acre-feet can be rectified, the destruction of our public lands cannot. Without public input, Sen. Burtenshaw has put forward a request to the federal government that seeks to undo decades of conservation. Once the Refuge is gone, it is gone forever.

The Refuge is a critical stopover site for thousands of migratory birds at peak migration and offers countless recreation activities, and groups such as the Idaho Chapter of Backcountry Hunters & Anglers, the Henrys Fork Wildlife Alliance, the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes who hold treaty rights at Camas, and more have said this joint memorial is not the way forward.

It isn’t clear what will happen to Camas because a joint memorial does not have the force of law, but Burtenshaw’s sponsor of SJM 104 puts the Refuge at risk. The over one thousand Idahoans who gathered in Boise on March 22 at the public lands rally represent a much higher number of citizens who don’t want to see our public lands destroyed for development or for personal water usage. Camas NWR is not a personal reservoir, and it is not for sale.

Sen. Van Burtenshaw, like all elected officials, has a duty to bring groups together and find solutions. He’s not done this. If there is a problem, he needs to be a statesman and do his due diligence to collaborate and solve it. Divesting citizens of our public lands is not the answer.