Posted on 12/17/2014 3:49:35 AM PST by HomerBohn
With the federal government engaged in a de facto unconstitutional occupation of some two thirds of Utah’s territory, citizens of the state and their elected representatives have had just about enough. So, on December 31, the State of Utah is formally demanding that Washington, D.C., relinquish control over more than 30 million acres of valuable land currently controlled by various federal bureaucracies.
While apparatchiks for an all-powerful U.S. government and far-left activists are fuming over the plan, Utah lawmakers, citizens, and experts say the time has come for the state to manage — and profit from — its own resources. Constitutionally speaking, experts say the lands should have gone to state control generations ago, as the federal government promised when Utah became a state.
The escalating battle now brewing between the feds and Utah formally got underway in in 2012, when Republican Gov. Gary Herbert, riding a wave of public outrage over federal abuses and land grabs, signed the popular Transfer of Public Lands Act. Among other elements, the law calls on the federal government to hand over control of public lands purportedly owned by the U.S. government within Utah’s borders.
The law also commissioned a study, released this month, examining various aspects of the process and finances — including how Utah would manage the land it is calling on the federal government to relinquish. According to the study, contrary to the hysterical claims of pseudo-environmentalists and federal supremacists demanding ever greater federal land grabs, transferring the lands to Utah would likely be “profitable” for the state.
Indeed, if Utah controlled its own lands — as opposed to bureaucrats and politicians in faraway Washington, D.C., who siphon away much of the state’s wealth and mismanage the resources — the state could easily bring in enough revenue to cover the costs of managing the lands, and then some. According to the researchers, the vast swaths of federally owned land represent an overall “drag” on the state’s economy — especially in the 20 out of 29 counties where the feds purport to own more than 40 percent of the land.
The 780-page study, “An Analysis of a Transfer of Federal Lands to the State of Utah,” was performed by economists from three leading Utah universities. It concluded that properly managing the lands by Utah authorities would cost the state government about $250 million annually by 2017. Revenues from those same lands in 2013 were already more than $330 million, with most of that coming from oil and gas royalties.
Depending on oil prices and other factors, a best-case-scenario would see the state’s coffers bulging with over $1 billion in additional revenue annually by 2035. By 2017, with a slight increase in drilling, the state could be earning nearly $400 million per year — more than enough to offset the costs of taking over fire suppression and other management duties from the federal government.
“In conclusion, from a strictly financial perspective, it is likely the state of Utah could take ownership of the lands and cover the costs to manage them,” found the study, which was celebrated by Utahans but blasted by Big Green lobbyists given a megaphone by the establishment press. “Our research also suggests that it could put a strain on the state’s funding priorities in the early years as the state adjusts to the loss of federal dollars, evaluates land resources and conditions, and develops programs to replace those now managed by federal agencies.”
While the potential economic benefits to the people of Utah are clear, many of the officials leading the charge are also concerned about broader issues. As the Western territories were officially becoming states, like in the East, the federal government agreed to eventually transfer those lands to state control. However, as with so many other promises made by the D.C.-based political class, so far, the pledges have not been fulfilled. The 2012 Utah law specifically cited those agreements from when the state joined the Union.
Perhaps the most important issue at play in the whole land issue, though, is the U.S. Constitution. Lawmakers involved in the effort point to, among other key points, Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, which outlines what types of property the federal government is authorized to own. The Federalist Papers, too, make clear that the Founding Fathers never meant to have the federal government serve as landlord over half of the Western states, and in some cases, as much as 85 percent of the territory within states such as Nevada.
Despite the 2012 law requiring the feds to get out by December 31 of this year, the controversial federal bureaucracies unconstitutionally occupying and (mis)managing the vast territories — primarily the U.S. Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service — have refused to cooperate so far, according to news reports. For the state lawmakers and officials behind the effort to restore state sovereignty over the land, however, that is simply not an option.
“We’re going to move forward and use all the resources at our disposal,” explained Utah Rep. Ken Ivory, who sponsored the 2012 law and also leads the American Lands Council, a group seeking to strip the feds of their gargantuan land holdings across the Western United States. Among other possibilities, state leaders are exploring a plan to hire a private law firm to lead the charge in court if Washington, D.C., refuses to surrender the lands by the deadline set in the law.
The first step in the process is to see whether the federal government will voluntarily comply with the Constitution and Utah’s law mandating that it be upheld. “That’s what you do any time you’re negotiating with a partner. You set a date,” explained Rep. 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.”
While the governor who signed the 2012 law has not been quite as enthusiastic as state lawmakers, he welcomed the report and vowed to continue considering the state’s options. “I expect that public discussion will be well-served by this report,” Republican Gov. Gary Herbert said in a statement about the study. “It is important to make decisions based upon a thorough review of accurate, relevant information.” He also said his office and the legislature would “continue to review” the study and “pose questions for further consideration of the legislature.”
As The New American reported earlier this year, Utah and its citizens are hardly alone in seeking to wrest control over the lands and the vast wealth currently claimed by the feds. In April, lawmakers and elected officials from nine Western states even met at the Utah Capitol for the Legislative Summit on the Transfer for Public Lands. “Legislators from across the West are saying enough is enough,” Washington State Rep. Matt Shea told The New American after the summit. “We are banding together to fight federal overreach wherever it rears its ugly head, not just talk about it.”
“The federal government cannot possibly know how best to manage land in the thousands of different locales like the people of those areas could,” the popular Republican lawmaker explained, echoing the sentiments of countless other policymakers and activists who say the federal government needs to be stripped of its vast, unconstitutional land holdings. “Clearly, the people of Western states would do a better job managing those lands.”
Already, the federal government alone purports to “own” about a third of the land in the United States — and with ongoing land grabs across the country under various pretexts, those numbers continue to mushroom. “The enabling acts of the Western States make it clear the federal government was meant to be a steward only until such time that the states could manage,” Rep. Shea explained. State and local governments also have vast land holdings.
Eventually, some advocates of reducing the gargantuan federal footprint across the Western states hope some of the land can be sold off and become private property rather than being owned by government. Getting the feds to relinquish control to state governments, though, would at least represent a good starting point.
There should be NO federal land owned....anywhere. All lands must be returned to the states in which they're located.
With the exception of DC. Maryland does not want that cesspool back
That would include military bases. The branch of service could lease that land cheap, the state would retain control.
Sure. Why bother with that pesky Constitution anyway? I guess Obama had the right idea by ignoring it.
Somehow I don’t think that D.C. is busily planning on the turnover two weeks from now.
“That would include military bases. The branch of service could lease that land cheap, the state would retain control.”
Federal military reservations are already required to have an agreement with the host state government.
There should be NO federal land owned....anywhere. All lands must be returned to the states in which they're located.
This land is your land
this land is my land
this land was made for federal government
this land werent made for you and me e!
As much as the Obama administration is being taken to court, maybe the Scotus should call a special session to deal with all their lawlessness...
Only half kidding...
Please, do tell, what part of the Constitution grants the feds claim to lands within the several states, for any purpose.
I think 2/3rds of Idaho is Gov’t owned.
They own 53% of Oregon which is mostly forests they restrict usage of.
Pray America is waking
The property clause, which has been upheld by the courts.
The Congress shall have the power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States.
That's it. No mention of vast expanses of land sealed off from "We the People". No mention of "national parks" or "federal lands". Just the power to purchase the required Places to house a very short list of specific items, and needed BUILDINGS. What kind of "needful building" requires 30 million acres of land?
Will you please provide Article and Section reference?
BTW, what you posted up is the Enclave Clause, which applies only to land transferred from a state to the feds and has no bearing on these lands that were always owned by the fed and never belonged to a state govt.
Did you read the article? The discussion is about federal government overreach. We the people are who is protected by the constitution. The feds are out of control in every way right now. The several states need to “correct” the feds, shrink the feds, and set them back to a constitutional coarse.
Thanks.
But, in what way has this land been “always owned by the feds”? Was it not part of the Territory of Utah, which the feds “disposed” of by accepting it in to the Union?
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei
There is some authority to *purchase* lands from the states for limited purposes. (Article I, Section 8)
“...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, dockyards, and other needful buildings.”
An interesting twist, “federal lands” given to Indian tribes are hopelessly muddled. Though claimed to be authorized by Article I, Section 8, which authorizes the government to conduct “commerce” with foreign nations and Indian tribes; it is also claimed that the tribes are “semi-autonomous nations”, whose relations with the federal government are by treaty. And many of these treaties are incomprehensible, and were when they were written.
This is made much worse by the *absence* of federal commercial law, which prevents tribes from inviting non-Indian owned businesses onto “their” reservations.
On top of this mess, there is a mess of “hostile” federal laws, such as the Indian Removal Act of 1830, and the Indian Appropriations Act of 1851.
This ended up with the creation of reservations by the insidious Executive Orders of the presidents. An abomination like the use of “presidential proclamations” to seize state lands on any whim.
New Mexico is 7/8 and Arizona is right up there.
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.