Idaho bill could weaken historic preservation in favor of development | Opinion
A proposal to move the Idaho State Historic Preservation Office out of the State Historical Society and into the newly created Office of Species, Minerals and Energy Coordination has historians and preservationists worried — and for good reason.
The concern is that OSMEC’s mission is to advance minerals and energy interests, and that conflicts with the preservation office’s regulatory role of protecting historic and archaeological resources.
“Our office, comprised of historic preservation professionals, is wholly opposed to this bill,” Kayla McElreath told the House Business Committee on March 19. She’s a compliance architectural historian with the preservation office but was speaking on behalf of herself and not the office.
“The staff is concerned that their professional ethics and integrity would be compromised or forced to be compromised with the reassignment of this division to an agency that acts as a project advocate for major mining and energy corporations,” she said.
The new Office of Species, Minerals and Energy Coordination is a result of the merger of the offices of Species Conservation and Energy and Mineral Resources into one new office, which legislators approved and the governor signed this session.
Rep. Ron Furniss, R-Rigby, pitched the bill to move SHPO as a way to further “streamline” the regulatory process under the new merged agency.
But if the idea is to make things more efficient, I would have expected testimony from someone explaining how their project was negatively affected by SHPO.
The committee heard testimony from only one person in support of the proposal, Paul Arrington from the Idaho Water Users Association.
He said that for water users, integrating SHPO into the same office handling environmental review and other federal-compliance steps would help get these processes done “more efficiently and effectively.”
But he didn’t provide any evidence or even anecdotes that the office has hindered or slowed down any project.
To the contrary, committee members heard the opposite, with seven people testifying against the bill, including historians and preservation experts, who said the current system is efficient.
“Although Bill 898 is framed as a way to improve efficiencies and generate cost savings for the state, those benefits remain uncertain,” Alexis Matrone, historic preservation planner with the preservation office, said on behalf of herself and not the office. “In reality, the unanticipated consequences and resulting delays are likely to cost Idaho taxpayers more than any projected savings.”
As usual, despite hearing overwhelming testimony opposing the bill from those in the know, the Republican committee members listened to one person who supported the bill, which passed the committee on party lines.
I also found it interesting that committee members grilled the bill’s opponents but didn’t ask a single question of Arrington or ask him to provide evidence or anecdotes as to how the current system is broken or slows down projects. Nor did legislators ask Furniss for any evidence that a problem exists.
In other words, SHPO was presumed guilty until proven innocent.
So if the bill purports to solve a problem that doesn’t exist, it’s fair to wonder why the bill is being proposed to begin with.
The concern that putting historic preservation under OSMEC, as Rep. Steve Berch, D-Boise said, “puts the thumb on the scale of development at potentially the expense of preservation,” appears to be a valid one.
Under OSMEC, staff could be pressed to “go lighter” at every step, be less demanding in identifying sites, downplay adverse effects or recommend cheaper or weaker mitigation. Because OSMEC would have control over staffing and internal priorities, it would have power over performance reviews, promotions, potential restructuring or quiet sidelining of “problematic” voices.
Even if no one explicitly says “change your conclusions,” indirect pressure — fear of discipline, stalled careers or resource cuts — could influence how rigorously staff apply preservation standards.
The bill is moving quickly. It passed the full House on Friday, 53-16-1, with all Democrats and seven Republicans opposing. It’s now over on the Senate side.
“SHPO literally has the word preservation in its name — it’s about preserving,” Berch said. “And OSMEC … is about streamlining approval processes for projects. So what I’m hearing is a conflict of interest between preserving versus changing through approval of projects. That puts the thumb on the scale of development at potentially the expense of preservation.”
Scott McIntosh is the opinion editor of the Idaho Statesman. You can email him at smcintosh@idahostatesman.com or call him at 208-377-6202. Sign up for the free weekly email newsletter The Idaho Way.
