Posted on 05/10/2015 2:52:46 PM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
Spread over 6,500 miles of sparse scrub and alkaline soil, Millard County is one of Utah's poorest. But for five years, the cash-strapped county so remote it was the site of a Japanese American internment camp in World War II still found $1,000 to send to the American Lands Council.
The Lands Council's goal is grand but simple: to wrest control of vast swaths of land from the federal government and turn them over to the states.
At stake are hundreds of millions of dollars, even billions, that could be made off land administered by the federal government. The big-dollar opportunities include oil leases in Utah grassland, all-terrain vehicle tourism in Arizona and rare-earth mineral mining in Nevada.
The council's pitch, often to rural county commissions: That money could be theirs, if they're willing to pay a little up front to help wage the land transfer battle.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
"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.)
No, it would not be reclaiming states land from the feds, assuming my recollection of history is correct.
Take for example the Louisiana Purchase. The federal government bought the land outright. The federal government owned it. Period.
Then came the homesteaders, applying for land from the feds, proving it up, and getting it. Farms were formed, townships were formed, cities, then boundaries were created for states and they applied for statehood.
As a result, several states were formed within the Louisiana Purchase.
My point is, whatever land that was never homesteaded or given to a state was originally and still is federal property.
Right?
What these people want to do is get more land from the feds.
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.
Then, just as a matter of headline accuracy, the use of the word reclaiming would be inaccurate.
Nevada is Urbanized because the Federal Government owns 90% of the land in the state. Where in the Constitution does it allow FedGov to own state lands with the exception of forts, magazines, and shipyards?
Title to all lands outside the original 13 colonies was originally vested in the federal government.
“and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings”
You see, in these states the federal government didn’t purchase the land, with the consent of the state legislature, for the very simple reason that the state didn’t exist. The federal government owned all the land in the territory except insofar as it sold it to private parties.
I’m not familiar with every state, but in MO, not generally considered a western state, the federal government was still selling rather large amount of public domain land off in the early decades of the 20th, and some as late as the 50s and 60s.
There seems to be a common belief that western states were screwed by the feds in some ways, that states farther east had the public lands deeded to them at statehood. AFAIK, midwestern states were dealt with more or less as western states were. I’m willing to be convinced otherwise, if anybody has, you know, evidence to that effect.
That large amounts of western land are still owned by the feds is primarily, though not exclusively, due to the fact that for about a century nobody wanted to buy the land. It wasn’t worth anything to anybody. With exception of lands with large mineral deposits, most of it still isn’t.
I have personally walked large distances on these lands in CO, NM, UT, AZ and WY. There is a really good reason nobody has bought it. The land has no value.
It has been my experience that the great majority of those who spout off about these lands have very little personal experience with them. I do, and I can tell you there are very good reasons they are still in federal ownership. There were no buyers, because there’s no way to make a living on the land unless it has minerals.
My experience here in northern California in a small town surrounded by the Forest Service is they our more into “preservation” than the multi-use that they used to do. Logging here is basically nonexistent. They have shut down most dirt bike trails. Purged most mining claims. You get the feeling that they don’t want you on their land.
.
Ever been to Twain Harte?
Surrounded by the Stanislaus National Forest, out of water, 1/3 of the properties up for sale, and the only logging going on is the standing snags from the “Rim” fire.
Used to be a booming place.
Yes and this was obviously made far worse by the Warren Court's infamous "Cows Don't Vote" ruling in mid 20th century! It simply ruins the balance struck since the founding of most states with their upper house (senate) representing land area, being forced into the "one person, one vote" pattern of the lower house just screws rural Americans, especially in western states.
In CA's state senate, one Senator represents 13 northern counties, while in LA county they enjoy being "serviced" by 13 Senatorial votes instead!!!
Imagine if the US legislature was changed in this way! Only one US Senator for 13 western states, for example!!!
No I haven’t but I see the same around a lot of communities that were dependent on the USFS. They cut back and starve these small communities. Here their main goal is road removal.
Your right, I caught that first thing before I read the article.
My state was a part of the Louisiana Purchase and all of my grand parents homesteaded, I have one set of actual homesteading papers that shows transfer from the feds to the settler.
If you own land, look at the abstract. There is likely a very first entry showing where the land was first deeded from the feds to the very first property owner. This would not apply to much of the 13 colonies or Spanish land grants.
I thought Utah put the feds on notice last year that they were taking back their lands.
Please watch your language.
Thanks for your polite and cogent response.
You apparently are too stupid to recognize that I specifically excluded land with valuable mineral rights, which is a small minority of the total.
I was also referring, in general, to BLM land, rather than Forest Service land. The history of Forest land being quite different.
BLM land was formed mainly out of the public domain land nobody wanted to buy by the 60s or whoever.
Why you think I’m personally responsible for mismanagement of timber lands is beyond me.
I am not personally a fan of most federal land management. But I’ve never seen one tiny bit of evidence that states would do any better.
I also am very familiar with large stretches of BLM land. Some of it is incredibly beautiful, but much of it resembles nothing so much as a really large construction site. Piles of dirt.
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.