Posted on 12/06/2014 7:23:46 AM PST by HomerBohn
The federal government has 31.2 million acres of Utah's land, and Utah wants it back.
According to the Washington Times on Wednesday, in three weeks, Utah plans to seize control of its own land now under the control of the federal government. Utah Gov. Gary Herbert, in an unprecedented challenge to federal dominance of Western state lands, in 2012 signed the “Transfer of Public Lands Act,” which demands that Washington relinquish its hold on the land. The land being held represents more than half of the state’s 54.3 million acres, by Dec. 31.
State Rep. Ken Ivory, who sponsored the legislation, isn't deterred even though the federal government hasn't given any indication that it plans to cooperate. “That’s what you do any time you’re negotiating with a partner. You set a date,” said Ivory. “Unfortunately, our federal partner has decided they don’t want to negotiate in good faith. So we’ll move forward with the four-step plan that the governor laid out.” That plan involves a program of education, negotiation, legislation and litigation. “We’re going to move forward and use all the resources at our disposal,” stated Ivory, who also heads the American Lands Council, which advocates the relinquishing of federal lands to the control of the states.
One might ask why Utah wants it's land back now. Well, it seems there’s hydrocarbons in those hills. The Salt Lake Tribune reported on Tuesday that an analysis from three state universities states that Utah can afford to take over more than half the state from the federal government, and may even be able to make more money on it than the feds have. It should be noted that the transfer would require either an act of Congress or a successful lawsuit.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
They shouldn’t own any land, but be forced to lease it.
A legislature is not restrained by the actions of a previous legislature. I assume that applies to Congress as well.
True. Congress can decide to grant all public lands in Utah to the state. Though I suspect they’d have to treat all states the same or run afowl something in the Constitution.
I doubt anyone would have a problem with treating all states the same.
There is a very good reason after nearly a 100 years Texas is still top of the US oil industry. Texas always owned most of its own land and thus oil drilling is largely uninhibited.
The states of the Southwest were in turn created by the Federal Government, and took the lands in question from the Indians, who had no concept of land ownership, only tribal territorial rights. Still, in the case of Utah I recall a crooked deal between the Clintons and the Riadhi family of Indonesia, which helped the latter corner the market on low-sulfur coal.
The reason the Fed controls western lands is because it purchased it before they were states, i.e. expansion. It’s a bit of a paradox when you think about it, however, I belive that ultimately states rights should prevail under the constitution after the formation of statehood. Additionally along those lines the Fed does not have authority to grab lands from states and make them “national” parks (a la captain progressive Teddy). There should only be state parks.
Most state governments would be no better than fedgov managing "public lands."
People here don’t care about the law at times
Historically, government gave away nearly all the vast land tracts it held or purchased on behalf of Americans. That changed and it shouldn’t have. America was designed to be a private property nation.
“Transfer of Public Lands Act,” which demands that Washington relinquish its hold on the land.”
Dont demand. Just take it. Send in the national guard to evict the federal employees off the land.
Title to land in states of what is now the Southwest was legally held by Spain and then Mexico. Some of it was handed out to favorites by these governments in land grants.
Title to all of of it that wasn’t granted passed to the the United States government by the Treaty of Guadelupe Hidalgo.
Tribes are considered to have aboriginal title, a sort of inferior title not including full sovereignty. Dealing with Indian tribes has always been considered to be exclusive to the federal government.
Well, since Fedgov isn’t selling the land as they originally claimed they would, it’s up to the states to do so. I think it’s way past time we told the feral government to piss off.
"As long as the river flows and the eagle flies.", has abetter ring to it don't you think?
Judicial Review of Indian Treaty Abrogation: As Long as Water Flows, or Grass Grows upon the Earth--How long a Time is That?
“...if we elect a conservative President in 2016.”
From your mouth to God’s ears.
Recently read a a book about Lewis and Clark.
A good part of it dealt with the Jefferson administration’s dealings with the Indians, as that was a big part of what the L&C expedition was about.
It quoted a good bit of Jefferson’s communications with officials involved in dealings with the Indians, not so much L&C themselves as those involved with negotiating treaties and such.
It became sadly clear that Jefferson and his people were not even pretending to themselves that they were trying to deal fairly and honestly with the Indians. Treaties were negotiated in bad faith from the start, never even intended to be kept. Just give them something to keep them quiet for a few years.
This was in stark contrast with internal communications from the Washington and Adams adminstrations. George and John may have had an ineffective Indian policy, but they weren’t openly conspiring to cheat and deceive the Indians. They were honestly trying to come to a fair resolution of differences.
Put a big crimp in my previous admiration for Tom Jefferson.
What was the book, if you don’t mind my asking?
I’d like to give it a look as well. Thanks.
I don’t mind a bit.
Unfortunately, it was a year or two ago. I read a lot of books and I’m terrible at remembering names or authors.
I’ll try to come up with it though.
Jefferson’s communications with his Indian agents tied in unfortunately well with stuff I’ve read elsewhere about his deviously intriguing against Washington and Adams while part of their administrations. Not an admirable man, in many ways.
Really sad, since he was quite possibly the greatest writer of political rhetoric with which I happen to agree.
Klinton wanted to repay his Chinese Communist supporters by removing good Utah coal fields from consideration as a viable energy source. We then began buying megatons of coal from China.
The state should be moving on taking that land now.
I wonder if the Chinese still own the Worthen Bank in Little Rock. They bought that so they could be close to their investments: Billy Goat and Hitlery.
What was that supposed to mean? Apparently bellicosity drifting out of a alcohol-infused mind.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.