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 ...
as I recall, the coal interests being protected were Indonesian, not Chinese. The market being protected was China. The Indonesian money provider to Clinton was selling coal to China.
I can’t remember the name of the Indonesian but some here surely can
BTW.....
The land Clinton took out of play is called The Grand Staircase Escalante. It was established as a park on lands then and still administered by the Bureau of Land Management. BLM set up a new National Park Service like organization to administer the park.
That is the same BLM that was faced down in Nevada in Dirty Harry’s nefarious attempt at a land grab.
For a fantastically beautiful drive over several days, visit the Grand Staircase Escalante and the adjacent National Parks.
You want an answer after taking a pissy tone like that? Go screw yourself, how about that?
“Judicial Review of Indian Treaty Abrogation: As Long as Water Flows, or Grass Grows upon the Earth—How long a Time is That?”
Utahs lands turn into a desert due to change in rainfall or the building of a dam to stop the river.
Indian lands however have nothing to do with the subject at hand.
If the Indians truly owned those lands they would not and should not need Washington holding their title. That act in itself is a kind of racist bigotry against the Indian nations capability to own land.
Give the Indians back their Reservation lands.
Washington should offload the land grant dispute issues to their respective state land departments.
That said that issue is entirely separate from control of the remaining lands actually in federal title.
As for Indian lands, Indian are fully capable of owning and managing their own lands in legal title as they already do in practice. The interior department should start throwing off this racist notion that they have to “hold in trust” the native american lands, and start direct transfers of that title.
“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.”
I agree, however when they became States the Feds Pleged to sell all the land. This became an issue when Feds started taking land off the market for the aforementioned parks and finaly all of it off the market all together in the 1970’s.
If they put the land back on the market instead of hording it for all eternity then there would not be an issue here.
I agree with you on State parks thou. Washington should perhaps never have gotten into the business of running its own parks. The Constitution Gives Congress the ability to take land with the consent of States for Forts arcnels and other military bases. This is a far different thing for a far diffrent propose than what they down do in hording the lands of the west over which they never obtained Sovereign consent & cession for such uses.
Legally speaking Washington Simply owns the title, but Washington’s corrupt self-serving Injustice system have expanded that title authority into full blown sovereign authority not only over the land but all its neighbors. This is the real reason westerns are justifiably ticked off.
Washington is becoming increasing aggressive and abusive with their power grabs threatening the livelihood and freedom of the people of the area. The western states are rationally coming to the conclusion that Washington has become too much of a bully and increasingly bad neighbor to keep around.
Again if Washington would simply sell the land as they had originally promised, this wouldn’t be an intolerable problem. But the Economic future and livelihood of the western states are now increasingly in jeperity by Washington’s ever more boligerate land management additudes.
Last year corruption in Washington led to an armed invasion of Nevada, instead of a simple arrest, whats going to happen this year or in two decades from now?
.......Title to all lands in the Great State of Texas, of which I have spent my life in, were acquired by about 1,500 heroes led by one Sam Houston in about 18 minutes at San Jacinto in 1836.
It IS possible that something similar could happen in Utah and elsewhere.
When Texas became a state, it was smart enough to hold on to its land. The feeling back then among guys who were still alive and actually fought and bled for the land was “we ain’t gonna just GIVE IT to Uncle Sam”.
As the saying goes......”ain’t no place like Texas!”
Good luck with that. It will never happen without a fifth step: forced eviction.
I'm just curious.
What did you mean by this crypto comment?
In Nevada it’s over 80%.
Yes they have posted maps of it here before, it’s amazing how much of the west is fed land. It’s time to end this.
I almost always favor states’ rights over federal domination. And this is certainly no exception.
Exactly.
Sorry, I realized that it looked like I was calling you that. It was a word play on “Obama” and “bombast” (bombast meaning “pretentious, inflated speech”). My humor was way too subtle and I’m sure people were just “Whatever, dude...” when they saw it.
My whole reason for taking a shot at 0bama here is because federal control of everything is just the sort of thing he loves, so Utah taking this step is a smack on him, too.
“... and may even be able to make more money on it than the feds have. “
Remember when the Supreme Court said that Eminent Domain could be applied for economic reasons .... exercise Eminent Domain and let the Feds try to fight it.
Utah will be the first of many I think...
Texans are glad this is a state park. The rangers are WAY more user friendly and less adversarial than the national park rangers. The rules are looser. You are free to go off the trail and poke around there, which is cool, because there is lots to see and do.
Plus, the state park allows mountain biking - there are many many miles of single track to explore, and one of the trails is listed as "best in North America" by IMBA, the international mountain biking association.
But Big Bend National Park? They will ticket and fine a bicyclist the moment he leaves the pavement. There are no bikes allowed on any trails. The park police are hateful and militant. They suck.
I went to Terlingua in 74 but never went into the park. I floated the river in 83 and 84. I know they have a lot of rules but they didn't seem to put forth much effort to enforce the rules.
I grew up in west Texas but not many went to that area. More likely to go to Carlsbad, Devils River, or Amistad. And of course Acuna.
As for the state park, most don't even know it exists and they don't have a lot of guests. It seems to me that the people who buy hunting and fishing licenses subsidize the state park.
What is an “SJC judge”?
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.