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 ...
I agree with you. It was never the intention to have Federal Lands....excepting....Indian Lands, Forts and Highways. Excepting Indian Lands, Forts and Highways should have reverted to the States.
The Feds control the majority of the western US.
Can’t “take back” land you never had title to.
One more item to add to the long list of things that can be accomplished if we elect a conservative President in 2016.
The Act by which Utah became a state, 1894: “That the people inhabiting said proposed State to agree and declare that they forever
disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within the boundaries thereof; ... and that until the title thereto
shall have been extinguished by the United States, the same shall be and remain subject to the
disposition of the United States...”
What part of “forever” does the state legislature not understand?
Kingdoms and lords own land, democratic/republican governments do not, other than those for facilities to perform their functions. There is not one legitimate reason for a government to personally possess land beyond that.
There was a large section of Utah that Clinton grabbed to put it off limits to mining. This land has the largest reserve of low sulfur coal (clean burning) in the world. This was done to pay back some illegal campaign contributors outside the country.
From the Act:
“...and that until the title thereto shall have been extinguished by the United States,the same shall be and remain subject to the disposition of the United States...”
Question:
By what mechanism is title extinguished?
Maybe that is what the Utah folks are aiming for.
The land was federal territory before it was federal land. It was never state land.
I'll grant the technicality.
But you must agree that one can take land they never had title to. (To use a preposition to end a sentence with.)
Anyone who can hold and defend the land from all comers owns it.
The mechanism by which US title is extinguished is when it sells or gives away the land.
I’m not necessarily opposed to transferring title to the state, but the state, like any other state, has no “right” to have it transferred. The land belongs to “the people of the United States,” not to the people of the State, up until it’s sold or transferred by Congress.
There is a common misperception that the western states have been mistreated by the government in this regard compared to eastern states. This is simply not true, or at least was not true at their admission.
The Ohio Enabling Act of 1802 served as the template for admission of all later states, except of course Texas. It provided for Congress to retain control of all lands until it sold or gave them away, providing 5% of the proceeds from such land to the state to pay for roads. See Section 6.
http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/w/Enabling_Act_of_1802_%28Transcript%29
The western states were treated the same. Much if not most federal land remained available for purchase or homesteading up thru the mid-20th.
However, out west most land had no buyers, for the simple reason the land was not productive enough economically to get someone to buy it. That’s why almost all ranchers preferred to acquire a few acres for a home ranch, with water rights, and graze their cattle on land still in the public domain.
So make a case why it’s good policy to transfer land to state ownership. But spare me the “rights” rhetoric.
State officials need to occupy it and see how far the Feds go to try to get it back.
Could get very interesting.
Riaddi I think.
Most, if not all, federal land out west was not "purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State."
US title dates from before the State existed, and indeed from before it was a territory. The US simply retained title after the State was created, as it did in all states. Except Texas. And come to think of it, I guess Hawaii.
Agreed. If the Feds want to continue to administrate Yellowstone etc that’s OK with me but other than that they have no business owning huge swaths of state lands.
The act didn’t state that Utah agreed to capricious ongoing land grabs by the Federal Govt.
All land should go back to the states….the Feds have done nothing in the last forty years but deny more access to the land….All national parks should remain but in state hands…
Good. I hope other western states do the same (since they are most enslaved by gubbmint lands); then I hope the rest of the country does the same
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.