[Jim Robinson]

"It has also been argued by public land transfer advocates that putting the lands back under state control will help create jobs, grow local and state economies, and help better fund education. This would be accomplished by the states opening up previously locked-out areas where oil, natural gas, and other natural resources can be accessed and harvested for use. Taxes collected from the public use of those lands would also provide additional funding to state educational spending."

[Organic Panic]

Taxes collected from the public use of those lands would also provide additional funding to state educational spending. It’s for the children. Always for the children.

[driftdiver]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_land

[Lou Budvis]

This is the appropriate way to highlight this important issue. Bundy, by virtue of his non-payment of fees and decades of disobedience of court orders, is not an a good poster-boy for this cause.

[Jim Robinson]

See also:

How long will our politicians continue to dither over federal control of Nevada lands?

by Thomas Mitchell

http://4thst8.wordpress.com/2012/03/14/how-long-will-our-politicians-continue-to-dither-over-federal-control-of-nevada-lands/

Excerpts:

The Utah Legislature has approved legislation demanding that the federal government cede certain federally controlled lands to the state.

A resolution accompanying the bill says such things as:

“WHEREAS, the enabling acts of the new states west of the original colonies established the terms upon which all such states were admitted into the union, and contained the same promise to all new states that the federal government would extinguish title to all public lands lying within their respective borders …

“WHEREAS, the state and federal partnership of public lands management has been eroded by an oppressive and over-reaching federal management agenda that has adversely impacted the sovereignty and the economies of the state of Utah and local governments …

“NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that … the Legislature of the state of Utah demands that the federal government imminently transfer title to all of the public lands within Utah’s borders directly to the state of Utah. …”

Arizona is working on similar legislation. So why doesn’t Nevada get on board and pass such a bill?

Well, been there done that.

In 1956 the voters of Nevada amended the state Constitution to allow taxation of federal lands, should the Congress ever consent. In 1996 the voters again amended the Constitution to remove the so-called Disclaimer Clause in which all unappropriated land was ceded to the federal government in perpetuity, should Congress ever consent.

Senate Joint Resolution 27 in support of that amendment read in part:

“WHEREAS, The State of Nevada has a strong moral claim upon the public land retained by the Federal Government within Nevada’s borders; and

“WHEREAS, On October 31, 1864, the Territory of Nevada was admitted to statehood on the condition that it forever disclaim all right and title to unappropriated public land within its boundaries; and

“WHEREAS, Nevada received the least amount of land, 2,572,478 acres, and the smallest percentage of its total area, 3.9 percent, of the land grant states in the Far West admitted after 1864, while states of comparable location and soil, including Arizona, New Mexico and Utah, received approximately 11 percent of their total area in federal land grants …

“RESOLVED, That the Legislature of the State of Nevada hereby urges the Congress of the United States to consent to the amendment of the ordinance of the Nevada constitution to remove the disclaimer concerning the right of the Federal Government to sole and entire disposition of the unappropriated public lands in Nevada …”

[Alex Murphy]

"It has also been argued by public land transfer advocates that putting the lands back under state control will help create jobs, grow local and state economies, and help better fund education. This would be accomplished by the states opening up previously locked-out areas where oil, natural gas, and other natural resources can be accessed and harvested for use. Taxes collected from the public use of those lands would also provide additional funding to state educational spending."

Thanks for posting this - I'm getting quite an education in federal lands today!

[Paine in the Neck]

Sandoval appears to be running hard to get back in front of the parade. His involvement in the Battle of Bundy’s Cattle was weak tea and certainly hurt him politically. This is an effort (welcome just the same) to repair some of the damage.

[dirtymac]

Where in the constitution does the Feds have the right to own 40% of CA, 90% of Nevada, in the form of BLM, Nation Parks, National Reserves, Military bases. the land should be owned, managed, governed by the state.

[wrench]

So it appears Nevada is not really a state, but a fed district, similar to D.C.

In other articles I have seen the total of fed owned land in Nevada is 86%.

[Jim Robinson]

See also:

Republican National Committee Counsel’s Office

RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF WESTERN STATES TAKING BACK PUBLIC LANDS

http://americanlandscouncil.org/myportfolio/republican-national-committee-resolution-supporting-the-transfer-of-public-lands/

Document Transcript

WHEREAS, The federal government promised all newly created states – in their statehood enabling contracts – that it would transfer title to the public lands;

WHEREAS, This promise to transfer title to the public lands is the same for all states east and west of Colorado;

WHEREAS, The federal government honored this promise with Hawaii and all states east of Colorado and today controls on average less than 5% of the lands in those states;

WHEREAS, The federal government has failed to honor this same promise with MT, WY, CO, NM, AZ, UT, ID, NV, WA, OR, CA and AK and today still controls more than 50% of all lands in these states (more than 80% of the state of Nevada);

WHEREAS, The Supreme Court of the United States declared these enabling act contracts to be “solemn compacts” with enforceable rights and obligations on both sides;

WHEREAS, In 1976 the United States Congress ended its nearly two hundred year public policy of beneficially transferring ownership of public lands by passing the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA);

WHEREAS, Public lands previously held in trust for the individual states were managed for their resource value prior to the passage of FLPMA;

WHEREAS, After the passage of FLPMA our public lands are instead being managed perpetually for their conservation value;

WHEREAS, Local state and national economies are all being adversely impacted by the loss of use of the natural resources thus being managed;

WHEREAS, Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT), Secure Rural Schools (SRS), and other public offsets are financially inadequate, have been unreliably funded and do not adequately compensate the States for the breach of their Enabling Acts; Paid for by the Republican National Committee 310 First Street, SE • Washington, DC 20003 • (202) 863-8638 • Fax (202) 863.8654 www.gop.com

WHEREAS, The U.S. Supreme Court case Hawaii v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs speaks to the proposition that Congress cannot by subsequent, unilateral action alter or diminish the rights conferred upon a state in consequence of its admission to the Union;

WHEREAS, Under the guise of “sequestration” to cut federal expenses, the federal government is cutting western states’ revenues in the form of PILT, SRS and FML (Federal Mineral Lease) cutbacks;

WHEREAS, States east of Colorado pay billions each year to subsidize western states to not use their lands and resources to educate their own children and care for their own communities;

WHEREAS, Western states already manage millions of acres of state lands generating more revenue with less expense and less environmental damage in general than federally managed public lands;

WHEREAS, The National Association of Forest Service Retirees recently issued a paper describing the unsustainability of current federal forest management practices;

WHEREAS, The resulting increase in catastrophic wildfires is needlessly killing millions of animals and destroying habitat and watershed for decades;

WHEREAS, Western states are incurring inordinate expenses to suppress forest fires related to failed federal forest policies;

WHEREAS, The federal government discourages capital investment and job creation by taking 10 times longer to approve energy development permits than states where the federal government honored the promise to transfer title to the public lands;

WHEREAS, The Institute for Energy Research discovered in 2013 that there is more than $150 trillion in mineral value locked up in federally controlled lands;

WHEREAS, Opening 8% of the coastal plain of ANWR in Alaska would provide billions of dollars to the Federal treasury, create more than 500,000 jobs nationwide and add between 9-16 billion barrels of oil to our nation’s supply;

WHEREAS, In 2012 the United States Government Accountability Office testified to Congress that there is more recoverable oil in UT, CO, and WY than the rest of the world combined locked up in federally controlled lands; and

WHEREAS, Legal analyses by the Sutherland Institute and The Federalist Society conclude that the intent of the parties, the text, and the context of the statehood enabling acts, obligate the federal government to dispose of public lands; now therefore be it

RESOLVED, That the Republican National Committee calls upon the federal government to honor to all willing western states the same statehood promise to transfer title to the public lands that it honored with all states east of Colorado; and

RESOLVED, That the Republican National Committee calls upon all national and state leaders and representatives to exert their utmost power and influence to urge the imminent transfer of public lands to all willing western states for the benefit of these western states and for the nation as a whole.

*As adopted by the Republican National Committee on January 24, 2014.

[crz]

Where the hell is taxcontrol at? He would explain to you that since the government OWNs everything, they can not do that.

[Monorprise]

This is extremely important for the western States and the Governor of Nevada needs to put this into the context of the Bundy ranch issue.

Its not the 1 million dollars that this Nevadian owes to Washington its the hundreds of billions of dollars Nevadian have lost over the last century of Washington hording 85% of their God given land, water, and natural resources.

Compared to what Nevadian have lost Bundy’s ranching rights stretching back a hundreds years is but a tiny drop in the Nevada desert.

Nevada has every right to stand up to Washington and assert her equal standing with states like New York who suffer only 1% of their land subject to federal meddling, neglect and abuse.

[GAFreedom]

Now THIS is what I’m talking about! They’re incredibly correct. Transferring these lands back to state control will boost the economies of those states significantly, as the mining and grazing rights will be in the hands of the local economies. This is, in my mind, the argument we should be supporting. It ain’t my state, but I’ll be writing the Nevada legislature in support of this.