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 ...
Bundy owns 160 acres. He believes he has a right to run his cattle on hundreds of thousands of acres of land he doesn’t own. He did so for over 20 years without paying grazing fees.
BLM fees this year, BTW, are $1.35/month, as compared to generally over $20/month on private land. Or $16.20/year versus upwards of $250.
AFAIK, nobody is trying to take land Bundy owns. There was an abortive attempt to remove his cattle from land he didn’t own.
If any other landowner tried to remove trespassing cattle from his property, would you object?
I want Texas to do the same darn thing! Good for Utah!
Perhaps you can explain to us why this is supposed to be a bad thing that supporters are likely from the fossil fuel industry and others.
For a lot of these lands, mineral interests are likely those that could profitably exloit the land. If the tree huggers want to “protect” land, they would be welcome to buy it as well. Ducks Unlimited has been doing this for years to protect migratory bird habitat.
And yes, as payback for enormous campaign contributions, Clinton essentially took our clean burning coal off the market- allowing Riaddy to sell his coal around the world. How sweet is that?
BUT- I do also wonder why Obama has gone further and tries to kill the rest of our coal industry....hmmmm...
Perhaps the Riaddys have found *other* friends in the White House...??
Part 1: Part 1
Part 2: Part 2
Part 3: Part 3
Suck it, 0bombast.
When Texas entered the union, because she was a nation, she retained all her lands. Federal lands in Texas are from modern times and there is not a lot of federal land in Texas
Big Bend was originally a state park(100,000 acres) but Texas gave it to the feds in the 1940s. Big Bend Natl Park was greatly expanded by the feds buying additional lands to make it larger.
Sometime along the way Big Bend was given a UNESCO designation and Texas didn't like that. Then the Rotary Club International started promoting Big Bend as a Peace Park with Mexico, and Texas didn't like that.
Big Bend Ranch came up for sale in the 80s. It was quite large and adjoined Big Bend Natl Park. Texas didn't want the Park Service to buy this ranch, so Texas bought it and it has been a financial liability to Texas Parks and Wildlife ever since.
The Federal government exercises no Constitutionally enumerated use for that land.
This misconcept flows from the notion that when govt imposes land use restrictions on private land, it is considered to be a "partial taking".
It is no misconception. The split estate in law has been established on "Federal lands."
Of course all landlords impose use restrictions on the renters.
Not when the "landlord" (interesting choice of words for a statist like you) does not have legitimate title.
Wouldn’t mind reading his argument. Do not have the time or inclination to sit thru 2.5 hours of somebody talking.
These lands are held in trust for the citizens of the US, and managed as multipurpose in accordance with congressional acts
I was a lurker back in Clinton’s day and a coal co. found a bunch of coal in a certain part of Utah and was working out the details of starting a mining operation. Clinton declared that area a National Monument and the Feds took it over. I hope my memory is correct and I don’t know how to check, anyone with more info or know how I would be happy to know if I remember correctly. Thanks.
Here is a quick summary of state sovereignty, if you can't spare the time for the videos:
http://www.libertyandlearning.com/downloads/that-troublesome-word-sovereignty/
Fine. All that’s needed to implement your policies is a law passed by Congress and signed by the President.
It might even be a good idea.
But it’s just not a constitutional matter. It’s entirely within the discretion of Congress.
Close but not exact.
The land in question was not “taken over” by the feds. It was already BLM land and had been public domain since 1848,
What Clinton did was declare it to be a National Monument rather than BLM land and thus subject to a higher degree of protection.
The proposed coal mine went by-bye.
I think it’s not totally unreasonable to point out that the coal isn’t going anywhere, and if we need it badly enough in the future Congress could simply pass a law allowing its exploitation.
Well all I can say is you must be seeing different stories than I saw. because the ones I saw all said how he lost the case and his fees were around $1,000,000 and the Feds wanted his land. They killed many of his cattle; used some for target practice.
They already have his neighbors. All for a solar project his Harry Reids son runs.
Yes!
FUBLM!
Thanks for this information!
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.