"MADISON, Wis. (AP) — Republican Gov. Scott Walker's budget would prohibit the state Department of Natural Resources from purchasing any land through its stewardship program until at least 2028 — if the program still exists then.
The budget the governor released Tuesday would place a moratorium on stewardship land acquisitions. It would last until the DNR's debt service on purchases that already have been made drops to $1 for every $8 spent since the program's inception in 1989. The program won't reach that ratio until 2028. The moratorium is expected to save the state $13 million in debt by then, according to Walker's budget.
The stewardship program is set to expire in mid-2020. Legislators could vote to renew it, but the program still couldn't buy any land until it meets that debt ratio....."
Walker plan to freeze land purchases wins support, dismay
"...As the cost of the stewardship program soared, Republicans in Walker's first term cut spending, imposed more oversight and ordered the DNR to sell 10,000 acres."
Walker budget cuts numerous UW/environmental programs, jobs
"As if Walker's across-the-board staff and program cuts to the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (66 science positions, for example), his removal of policy-making authority from the citizen-attentive Wisconsin Natural Resources Board, exempting the huge system statewide from energy saving goals, his removal of state financing from recycling programs and his 13-year suspension of the popular Knowles-Nelson land stewardship purchase program wasn't enough of a slam at public access to public policy-making, science, land and resources, his proposal to restructure the UW system and slash its budget would also mandate many deep cuts in UW managed and offered environmental activities, including, says the budget document:........."
Scott, keep up the good work!
What is the connection between the folks in Utah wasting $1,000 of their money and Scott Walker? Walker’s move to tie the state’s hands to 2028 seems pretty stupid and shortsighted. And about those federal lands in the west, it really is good that the federal government controls them because that means they are not fenced, that the public, meaning citizens like me, can access them. Nothing worse than converting it all to private land, to be fenced off with no trespassing signs. (I grew up in Idaho, Alaska, and elsewhere, have lived in quite a number of US states and no problem with the feds and state controlling large tracks of land. Consider the alternative, such as the Adirondacks, where most everything is fenced off and inaccessible.)
Not a bad article. But the headline is kind of stupid. Western states can’t “reclaim” land they never had title to. AFAIK, no state ever had federal lands within its boundaries handed over to state title. Texas is sort of an exception, but that’s because its public lands were originally owned by the nation of Texas, not by the federal government.
I have no particular objection to transferring title to states, but I seriously doubt it will be the panacea for rural westerners problems they think.
If only because most western states are heavily dominated by their cities.
NV, for instance, is one of the most urban states in the country, way over 90%. I see no particular reason why a state bureaucracy dominated by urban interests should be greatly more sympatico with rural folks than the feds are.