# Debate: Managing public lands in the State of Utah. Federal vs. State



## The Naturalist (Oct 13, 2007)

There has been quite a bit of interest here lately on ownership of the public lands in Utah. I just found out about this debate this morning, it will be tonight, sounds interesting!

The Salt Lake Tribune, KCPW 88.3/105.3 FM and the Hinckley Institute of Politics at the University of Utah are sponsoring a debate on the resolution: "The State of Utah is best suited to manage public lands within its borders."*The event begins at 7 p.m. Wednesday night and is free and open to the public at the Salt Lake City Main Library, 210 East 400 South.*
We hope you'll be there!
Arguing for the motion will be Utah House Speaker Rebecca Lockhart and West Jordan Republican Rep. Ken Ivory, president of the American Lands Council.
Arguing against the resolution will be former BLM director Pat Shea and Dan McCool, political science professor and director of the Environmental and Sustainability Studies Program at the University of Utah.
Those attending will have an opportunity to vote on which team was most persuasive. 
*Please join us at this debate to help demonstrate that Utahns care about the protection of federal public lands and want to see them remain in the hands of all Americans!*


----------



## gdog (Sep 13, 2007)

Do you know if they are going to record this and post up somewhere? I can't be there, but would love to listen to the debate.


----------



## The Naturalist (Oct 13, 2007)

gdog said:


> Do you know if they are going to record this and post up somewhere? I can't be there, but would love to listen to the debate.


Not sure.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Here is a link to the video, I was present, and might have screamed a bit 

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/57942898-90/utah-ivory-lands-federal.html.csp


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

Its appears that the entrance and exit poling of those in favor or against land becoming state controlled was swayed by this debate. Lockhart and Ivory made a very compelling argument. 

Can someone point me in the direction of an eastern state under state and private control where they have even a tiny bit the natural resources we do in Utah but pay less for infrastructure and education (just a couple of examples)? Natural resources and access should be controlled by those who are stewards of that land anyway. It should belong to the states and that was the promise made to each state in their ratifying documents. I'm in favor of state control of those lands and natural resources so long as the sale of those lands to private holders is NEVER done to the detriment to Utahns (ie...prime wildlife habitat being sold to interests who deny the public access to hunt those lands or restrict access to the degree nobody will bother).


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

klbzdad said:


> Its appears that the entrance and exit poling of those in favor or against land becoming state controlled was swayed by this debate. Lockhart and Ivory made a very compelling argument.
> 
> Can someone point me in the direction of an eastern state under state and private control where they have even a tiny bit the natural resources we do in Utah but pay less for infrastructure and education (just a couple of examples)? Natural resources and access should be controlled by those who are stewards of that land anyway. It should belong to the states and that was the promise made to each state in their ratifying documents. I'm in favor of state control of those lands and natural resources so long as the sale of those lands to private holders is NEVER done to the detriment to Utahns (ie...prime wildlife habitat being sold to interests who deny the public access to hunt those lands or restrict access to the degree nobody will bother).


See, that's the problem, the plan is to sell a bunch of it off. The current structure supports the public trust doctrine of the NAMWC, the proposal to turn it over to the states, does not. It has been stated, that a good portion will be sold, to private interests, and Herbert said he does not care if the Chinese buy it.

How many Eastern states have the kind of moose, bighorn sheep, mule deer, mountain goat, and other hunting, that the West has? We don't pile in our rigs and head East in the fall, and public lands is why.

Go read the Utah enabling act, in its entirety, and then go get a lawyer to explain it to you. Then go read the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. If Utah wants Federal land, they should propose to purchase that land from the People of the United States, until then, put your empty hand back in your empty pocket.

Peay and Ivory are two peas in a pod. Go look at the stream access issue.


----------



## massmanute (Apr 23, 2012)

klbzdad said:


> It should belong to the states and that was the promise made to each state in their ratifying documents.


You refer to a promise made to the state in the ratifying documents. I'm trying to figure out where those promises were made.

Do you mean the part of the Enabling Act that says "That the people inhabiting said proposed State do agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within the boundaries thereof;"?

Or are you thinking about the part of the State Constitution which says "The people inhabiting this State do affirm and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within the boundaries hereof,"?


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

klbzdad said:


> Its appears that the entrance and exit poling of those in favor or against land becoming state controlled was swayed by this debate. Lockhart and Ivory made a very compelling argument.
> 
> Can someone point me in the direction of an eastern state under state and private control where they have even a tiny bit the natural resources we do in Utah but pay less for infrastructure and education (just a couple of examples)? Natural resources and access should be controlled by those who are stewards of that land anyway. It should belong to the states and that was the promise made to each state in their ratifying documents. I'm in favor of state control of those lands and natural resources so long as the sale of those lands to private holders is NEVER done to the detriment to Utahns (ie...prime wildlife habitat being sold to interests who deny the public access to hunt those lands or restrict access to the degree nobody will bother).


if beauty is in the eye of the beholder isn't all land prime wildlife habitat? What is it that makes San Juan any better than the Bookcliffs, or the Bookcliffs any better than the Southwest desert? Furthermore, show me a town with benches that are developed and I will show you an area that the critters probably once considered prime wildlife habitat. The lines that have been drawn between private, state and federal lands can already pretty much be told apart by the naked eye. It doesn't take a map.


----------



## massmanute (Apr 23, 2012)

Let me add a thought or two about the so-called "promises" made in the Enabling Act. I say "so-called" because I have yet to read any words in the Enabling Act that says that the Federal Government "promised" it would transfer control of public lands to the state or that it would transfer public land to private ownership.


Arguments that I have seen for the interpretation that a promise was made largely rely on the following wording in the enabling act: “… 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,” However, this clause simply says that as long as the U.S. Government holds title to the land the U.S. Government is the only entity that can transfer title of the land. There is nothing in that wording that requires the Government the government to transfer title to any entity, least of all to the State of Utah, keeping in mind that in both the Enabling Act and in the State Constitution the State of Utah forever gave up any claim to the land.


Furthermore, the U.S. Constitution states that “The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States.” The U.S. Supreme Court has described this power as being without limitation. Thus, the fate of Federally owned land is entirely in the hands of the U.S. Congress.


The other main argument that has been made for the concept that a promise was made amounts to saying that “The Federal Government has always had a policy of transferring title of Federally owned land to other entities, or at least they did before the disposition of land in the Western states became an issue.” This may be true, but under the Supremacy Clause combined with the clause giving power to the Congress to “make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting… Property belonging to the United States” such policies are at the discretion of the U.S. Congress, and just because the policy had been a certain way at one time does not create and obligation on the U.S. Congress to continue with the same policy. If Congress changes its mind on how to manage Federal land (and it has), then the new policy is what governs up and until such time (if ever) that Congress changes its mind again.


And finally, even if Congress had previously made laws or policies about Federal land, any such laws or policies that might conflict with the Enabling Act are voided by the last clause of the Enabling Act itself, which sates: “That all acts or parts of acts in conflict with the provisions of this act, whether passed by the Legislature of said Territory or by Congress, are hereby repealed.”


----------



## massmanute (Apr 23, 2012)

Let me comment on the historically-based expectation that title to Federal land would be transferred to other entities.

Utah was the 45th state admitted to the Union. Among the states that preceded Utah into statehood that also have significant chunks of Federal land include: California (1850), Minnesota (1858), (Oregon (1859), Nevada (1864), Colorado (1876), North Dakota (1889), South Dakota 1889), Montana (1889), Washington (1889), Idaho (1890), and Wyoming (1890).

If residents of Utah hadn't noticed that there was not taking place a large scale transfer of Federally owned land in the new states then they just weren't paying attention to the history of the previous several decades, and their expectation of such a transfer was therefore based on false hope rather than fact.

By the way, ignore the smiley face in the Minnesota date. The date is 1858, and I don't seem to be able to get rid of the smiley face.


----------



## massmanute (Apr 23, 2012)

klbzdad,

I hate to be a pest, but since you say that the ratifying documents contain a promise that the Federal government will give its public lands to the states, would you please quote the promise as it appears in the documents?

If you can't find that, can you at least find any other official documents from the U.S. government wherein the U.S. government made such a promise to the State of Utah?

If you can't find that, could you at least dig up some of the commentary (e.g. newspaper reports or other material) from the early 1890s that report that such a promise was being made to the future State of Utah?

I have tried to find such evidence, and so far I have come up empty handed. Frankly, I don't believe it exists. I think this so-called "promise" is nothing more than a pipe dream, motivated by a combination of politics and wishful thinking by those who advocate the taking of public lands.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

The other thing to remember is that the Homestead Act also allowed claim to any of the lands owned by the Federal Government. This started in 1860, and with various other additions, continued for 116 years, until the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA) was passed in 1976. So in that time, Utah became a state in 1896. So Utahans had 80 years to claim, free of charge, any of the lands owned by the United States. The point of the Homestead Acts was to dispose of ALL Federal lands, into private ownership. By the 1960s, not many claims were being made any more, and people started seeing the value to keep the lands available to the pubic. And the Federal Lands in Utah - all those that are now managed by the BLM - THE reason they are managed by the BLM is that no one wanted them for the first 80 years of Utah's statehood. So to say Utah never had the chance to get those lands totally ignores nearly a century of Federal management focused solely on getting people to take the lands. And when there were millions of unclaimed acres void of management, something had to be done to deal with it.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

One other thing. Each BLM Field Office is managed under what is called the Resource Management Plan. In this plan, lands are identified that the BLM would like to get rid of. And in each Field Office, there are quite literally, thousands of acres that BLM will gladly sell or trade. Most are isolated parcels, or parcels on the fringes of towns, places like that. You just have to go through the process to get the lands. Exchanges are more likely than buying the lands. But still - there are BLM managed lands available to people if they really want them.


----------



## HighNDry (Dec 26, 2007)

Any of the BLM lands have streams or rivers running through them? We all know what the state of Utah does with public water--hear the lock--see the key?


----------



## massmanute (Apr 23, 2012)

Some people advocate that the State of Utah should "take back" public land that belongs to the Federal Government. What everyone needs to understand that the slogan "take back the land" is based on a lie from the beginning. Let me provide a little quote that clarifies the issue of original ownership of public lands in Utah:

_"All land in Utah became part of the public domain when the United States signed the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in February 1848. This land came into the possession of the United States government with a clear and undisputed title. No state contested title, and no private rights had been established previously."_

Considering the fact that Utah did not even become a territory until September 9, 1850, more than two and a half years after the Federal Government acquired title to all of the land in what was to become the territory, Utah never did own the public lands, and therefore the idea that Utah should or could "take back the land" is based on the lie that Utah once had title to the land. The State of Utah never did own the land in question, and neither did the Utah Territory.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

HighNDry said:


> Any of the BLM lands have streams or rivers running through them? We all know what the state of Utah does with public water--hear the lock--see the key?


Many State lands are the same way. Utah hunters and fisherman pay large sums of money to keep access to SITLA property. Yet we have no say in their use. Further state ownership of public lands would look much the same.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

That is something that most people don't realize about SITLA lands. They are not open to the public. They really are private lands, owned by SITLA - which is not a state agency, but a separate entity. So SITLA lands are closed to public access by default. So that means that unless public access is granted for that specific parcel, it is closed to the public, like any other private lands in the State.


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

massmanute said:


> klbzdad,
> 
> I hate to be a pest, but since you say that the ratifying documents contain a promise that the Federal government will give its public lands to the states, would you please quote the promise as it appears in the documents?
> 
> ...


You're not being a pest at all. In fact, this thread has somehow slipped by my crazy mind's eye but you've managed to open them and change my perspective. Lonetree, you started to add to that change in perspective until you insulted me, being once again, a d1ck.

I read the entire enabling act several times and even spoke with two attorneys about the way the act is structured and you're correct. While in other state's enabling acts, provisions allow for the return of the land back to the states it is clear that our forefathers in Utah rushed to get this done and essentially omitted that provision and forfeited any title to the land. So I wend directly to to the horses mouth and proposed several questions to Ken Ivory. He hasn't gotten back to me yet, but I'm interested to see how he spins the clear facts.

Thank you for correcting me, I stand edified and corrected. That said, why is our enabling act so focused on the land? Appears to me that the monkeys back east understood somehow that the land would be valuable and that disposing of it or returning it to the states wasn't a problem until the value of the resources they hold became apparent to them. There is still compelling argument that the lands can be better managed at the state level but I still want Ivory to answer my questions before I stand on this wagon with wheels becoming more square every day.

Here's the text of the enabling act if anyone cares to wade through it:

http://archives.utah.gov/research/exhibits/Statehood/1894text.htm


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

klbzdad said:


> There is still compelling argument that the lands can be better managed at the state level


I have not heard a compelling argument yet. I have heard the arguments but none that were compelling.


----------



## massmanute (Apr 23, 2012)

Here is some additional information. There is a document called "School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration" that you can download from the web. The name of the file is TrustLands101.pdf. It contains some interesting information about trust lands in Utah.

First, one has to realize that in enabling act, the Federal Government gave the State a large amount of land. This was not "given back" to the State because the State never owned it to begin with. It was essentially a free gift from the Feds to the State, although most of that land had strings attached because it was required that revenue from the land be used to support certain institutions, such as public schools and other institutions.

Now, here is the interesting information I learned from the document. The state sold more than half of the original trust lands, most of it during the first 35 years, and furthermore, about 30 percent of all private land in the state was originally part of the trust lands.

It sounds to me like the State got a great deal from the Feds, since the State got the trust lands for free. Now they want to grab more land that doesn't now belong to them nor ever has belonged to them.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

I call it like I see it. It is a bunch of people with their empty hands out, asking for something that does not, and never did belong to them. Even worse, it belongs to a lot of people, every US citizen, and they want to usurp that. Like I said, Utah can by all means propose to purchase it. Even after the onset of the sagebrush rebellions of the early '80s, there was lots and lots of federal land being given to Utahans and sold to Utahans. 

Back East, the land was homesteaded, stolen, and bought as it was occupied and added to the United States. I added bought because 400 years ago my great to the tenth power grandfather took issue with those not working with Native Americans cooperatively, not compensating them, or other wise not handling things in a "legal" and civil manner. 

By Jefferson's era, and the Louisiana purchase, we were adding large tracts of land to the United states. This was the case after the Spanish American war. Even after winning the war, we the people of the United States, still compensated Mexico for the Western territories we added to the United Sates. Meaning the people of the United States purchased that land. The United States of America led to the formation of Utah, not the other way around. And in the last 167 years, it has only really been in the last 30 that we have heard this fairly tale about giving anything "back". There is no back, it never was. 

The US government(We The People) fought a war and purchased the land that would become the state of Utah. 

I have seen Ivory make claims about how the Federal government can not own land. If that is the case, and Jefferson never made the Louisiana purchase, and we(US) never purchased Alaska from the Russians, and we(US) never signed the Treaty of Guadalupe, how would Utah even exist? As a Mexican state? Independent? Its own country?

My family rolled into Utah ahead of Brigham Young, but I am first and foremost a US citizen.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

GREAT post Lonetree.


----------

