This being the first time I have read this enabling act, there is nothing unclear about it. I guess they should not have signed away their rights to the land.
Kind of knocks their legal legs right out from under them, doesn't it? And I think every state in the west has similar language in their enabling acts as well. I'm not saying it's fair. And I'm certainly not saying that the states couldn't manage the land better than the BLM does. But Utah did sign their rights away when they became a state and let's not pretend there's anything illegal or unconstitutional about it. It is what it is.