Posted on 09/08/2013 11:26:30 AM PDT by Hildy
BULLHEAD CITY — Almost half the land in Arizona — 48.1 percent to be exact — is owned by the federal government. Nevada leads the nation in federally owned land with an astounding 84.5 percent. And the feds own 45.3 percent of the land in California.
“The federal government controls more than 50 percent of all the land in the Western United States — a third of all land in the entire land mass of the United States,” said Ken Ivory, a Utah state senator and president of the American Lands Council.
Ivory has assumed a leading role in the fight to get federal lands transferred to the Western states. He said he believes it is an opportunity for the states to generate more income from oil and mineral rights, funding education, creating jobs and growing local and state economies and tax bases.
According to the Institute For Energy Research, “there’s $150 trillion in minerals locked up in the federally controlled lands,” Ivory said. “According to the Government Accountability Office, there’s more recoverable oil in Utah, Colorado and Wyoming than the rest of the world combined, locked up in federally controlled lands.”
Locally, a town hall meeting will be held this week to address the issue of transferring federal land to state control. Ivory will speak at the meeting, scheduled for 6 p.m. Friday in the Mohave County Board of Supervisors Auditorium, County Administration Building, 700 W. Beale St., Kingman.
With the transfer of land from federal to state control, Ivory said he sees economic opportunity not just for the West, but for the entire United States.
“We don’t have to be the world’s largest debtor nation. But prosperity requires production,” he said.
“North Dakota controls all of the access to its lands and it gets 100 percent of the mineral royalties. Utah and Arizona, we control hardly any of our land, and we only get 48 percent of the mineral royalties and under sequestration, they were cutting 5 percent of that back,” Ivory said.
The goal is to compel Congress by negotiation, legislation or, if necessary, litigation to honor the same statehood promise for Western states to transfer title to public lands that it kept with Hawaii and all states east of Colorado. The federal government owned 90 percent of the land in many states east of the Mississippi River, but now owns 5 percent, Ivory said.
Five Western states have already passed “transfer of public lands” legislation — Nevada, Utah, Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming.
The U.S. Constitution’s property clause “says Congress has the power to dispose of these Western territorial lands,” Ivory said. “So it’s clearly within Congress’s power to dispose of them. They made a policy change in 1976 and said, ‘We’re going to hang onto them forever.’ Well, they can unchange that policy at any time that’s killing Western communities.”
He brought up another argument in favor of states controlling their land.
“In Arizona, for example, do states really have to ride out federal mismanagement of the forests until the forests are all burned to the ground? Clearly, the notion of federalism, this governing partnership where the states are obligated to take care of health, safety (and) welfare, would imply the states have a duty to step in and thin those forests to protect the environment, protect the animals that are being burned, to protect the watershed that’s being destroyed.”
Ivory cautioned that transferring federal land to Western states is a long, complicated process.
“We’re a hundred years getting into this mess and so it’s not going to be something where you flip a switch and get out of it, unfortunately. But we have five states that have passed legislation and they’re now moving and studying the economics and the logistics of transfer and what a transition for that would look like.”
Mohave County has joined the American Lands Council because “We believe that the federal government has crossed the line between simply managing land to an oppressive and possible illegal policy of sealing off land for any and all public use,” said Mohave County District 2 Sup. Hildy Angius, R-Bullhead City. “We have seen this in their non-stop use of the Endangered Species Act, to the halting of uranium mining to the very unpopular reintroduction of the Mexican gray wolf. Because we have so little land that is privately owned, our tax base is low and everything suffers, especially education. It appears that the Western states have finally banded together to tell the federal government enough is enough and the Mohave County Board of Supervisors supports that movement.
“We believe it is critical to the future of our county and our state to stop the federal government before it is too late.”
“It’s a huge educational effort,” Ivory said. “There’s nothing unconstitutional or impossible about it. The only thing that we lack is knowledge and courage.”
For more information, go to the American Lands Council website at: www.americanlandscouncil.org.
If You Go
What: Town hall meeting about federal land ownership
When: Friday, 6 p.m.
Where: County Administration Building, 700 W. Beale St., Kingman
My God, you people say you want this to happen, and then when people step up and actually do something, you deride them for that. Unbelievable.
This happens all the time on FR, on every issue. I’m sick of it. Pre-emptive defeat. Really makes you wonder what peoples’ motives are....
Good for you!!!
An excellent proposal.
And in OR. My sheriff fought the feds when they illegally prohibited access to fed lands in my county.
yet.
INDEED.
Things cannot stay this way.
I’m going to have to do some research to find the specifics, but I know that the original constitution limited the federal gov’t to land for military installations & gov’t bldgs. It was never intended for the feds to own vast tracts of land. Once a territory was made into a state, the gov’t was supposed to transfer authority.
Our western states are at an extreme disadvantage, since the gov’t has locked up so much land that can not be used for taxes. It’s time for the same rules to apply out west that applied to the east.
What State do you live in?
Oregon.
“You have to look at the deeals ea that were made and what they say.”
You could say that’s the underlying reason I wrote what I wrote.
“Do you think we’d be doing this if we didn’t think there was a chance?”
No, but the chance is better if you base you consider the deals that were made rather than what people erroneously think they were.
“My God, you people say you want this to happen, and then when people step up and actually do something, you deride them for that.”
Who, me? I just tried to indicate the right track.
“But they weren’t supposed to “own” it forever. They were supposed to cede it back to the states at some point.”
They can’t cede it back to the individual state if the individual state didn’t have it to start with.
Where does it say they were supposed to?
I’ve read the laws in that connection. Maybe marsh2 knows.
You apparently like Gargantuan Uber-controlling fedgov. I do not. I live in a county of which more than 70% is federally owned, and it has extremely high unemployment and poverty. If the lands were state and county owned, we would be a productive and prosperous county.
That you have read the laws in that connection does not help me understand that "...they weren’t supposed to “own” it forever" and "They were supposed to cede it back to the states at some point.”
I've read or looked at some of the law in question to, though certainly not all of it. For instance the following, which can be found at http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/other/enabling_act.htm :
ENABLING ACT
AN ACT to provide for the division of Dakota into two States and to enable the people of North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, and Washington to form constitutions and State governments and to be admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original States, and to make donations of public lands to such States. (Emphasis added.)
Further down it states:
SEC. 4. (snip) And said conventions shall provide, by ordinances irrevocable without the consent of the United States and the people of said States:
(snip)
Second. That the people inhabiting said proposed States do agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within the boundaries thereof, and to all lands lying within said limits owned or held by any Indian or Indian tribes; and 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, and said Indian lands shall remain under the absolute jurisdiction and control of the Congress of the United States;(Emphasis added.)
I do admit subsequent legislation of which I am not aware may have amended the above, but as far as I can tell, that doesn't jibe with "...they weren’t supposed to “own” it forever" and "They were supposed to cede it back to the states at some point.”
"You apparently like Gargantuan Uber-controlling fedgov."
That's certainly a leap. If I may reply in the same tone, it's just that I think some of you ignoramuses have got the basics wrong and will drag everyone else down with you as you fail.
“At least we’re trying. I can tell my Grandchildren I fought for freedom. Can you say the same thing?”
WTH is your problem? I made an observation. You LIKE getting angry? When one is involved in a battle remarks which may be perfectly factually accurate and uttered to confidants backstage may when uttered publicly give the enemy heart or may otherwise be an indication that someone is getting tired. One NEVER hears the Left speaking this way publicly. NEVER!
As for your ‘fought for freedom’ question: There are more seasons and other men to rise in them than the one you and yours labor in today. Despite your energetic efforts this will descend to a gunfight before very long. Of this there isn’t the slightest doubt in my mind.
This is an example of things that get written that do not tramslate the way it was intended. I said it like a rallying cry, not as a prelude to an argument. I apologize if that’s what it sounded like.
U.S. Constitution: Article 1, Section 8 powers:
“To exercise [b]exclusive Legislation[/b] in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, 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, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;” is the exclusive power that the feds have over federal enclaves. Public lands are NOT federal enclaves.
“The words ‘public lands’ are habitually used in our legislation to describe such as are subject to sale or other disposal under general laws.” Newhall v. Sanger, 92 U.S. 761; See also Leavenworth, etc., R. Co. v. U. S., Id. 733; Doolan v. Carr, 125 U.S. 618, 8 Sup. Ct. 1228.
However, in 1976, Congress passed FLPMA (Federal Land Policy and Management Act- BLM Organic Act, P.L. 94-579) (90 Stat. 2743, codified at 43 U.S.C. 1701.) It states:
“The Congress declares that it is the policy of the United States that the public lands be retained in federal ownership.”
The jurisdiction the feds have over reserved lands withdrawn from the homesteading or disposal process is covered under Article 4 Section 3: “The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property [b]belonging to the United States;[/b] and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.”
This is not “exclusive” legislative jurisdiction and is jointly held with state jurisdiction. See [u]Jurisdiction Over Federal Areas Within the States, Report of the Interdepartmental Committee for the Study of Jurisdiction Over Federal Areas Within the States “ http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/fj0-0000.htm
For instance:
Regarding the reservation of lands subsequent to Statehood, in Friedman v. Goodwin, (CC.1856) Fed. Cas. No. 5, 119, 1 McAll. 142, the court decided:
“On the cession of [Mexican] California to the United States, all the public lands therein became the property of the United States. On her admission to the Union, she became the owner of all the public land not disposed of by law of congress.”
After extensive lobbying by John Muir, Yosemite was designated a National Park in 1891. However, in order to vest exclusive jurisdiction and ownership in regard to these lands in the United States, it was necessary for the California Legislature to approve a deed of cession for Yosemite to the U.S in St. 1891, p. 262 as follows:
“The State of California hereby cedes to the United States of America exclusive jurisdiction over such place or parcel of land as may have been or may be hereafter ceded or conveyed to the United States...”
I have worked with Ken Ivory and have sent him some of my research. He and I differ in opinion regarding enabling acts.
Sept 9, 1850 Act for Admission of CA into the Union
http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/caadmit.htm
Sec. 3. “And be it further enacted, That the said State of California is admitted into the Union upon the express condition that the people of said State, through their legislature or otherwise, [b]shall never interfere with the primary disposal of the public lands within its limits, and shall pass no law and do no act whereby the title of the United States to, and right to dispose of, the same shall be impaired or questioned;[/b] and that they shall never lay any tax or assessment of any description whatsoever upon the public domain of the United States...”
This had to do with the federal governments primary authority to issue land patents - a tribunal judgment that there were no tribal or international treaty obligations tied to the lands and that the claimant had perfected possessory title according to homesteading laws. The federal government held original “title” only as a ministerial function and breached its fiduciary duty to the people of the western states for reserving lands in federal ownership.
The Enabling Act language did not create that broad unconstitutional right and would not have been binding on a new state legislature if it had, even though it has been used to anchor federal land rights for more than a century.
As stated by Justice Field in Escanaba & Lake Michigan Transp. Co. v. City of Chicago, 107 U.S. 678 (1883):
“...although the act of April 18, 1818, enabling the people of Illinois territory to form a constitution and state government, and the act of August 26th, following, admitting the state into the Union, refer to the principles of the [Northwest] ordinance according to which the constitution was to be formed,-its provisions could not control the authority and powers of the state after her admission. Whatever the limitation upon her powers as a government while in a territorial condition, whether from the ordinance of 1787 or the legislation of congress, it ceased to have any operative force, except as voluntarily adopted by her after she became a state of the Union. On her admission she at once became entitled to and possessed of all the rights of dominion and sovereignty which belonged to the original states. She was admitted, and could be admitted, only on the same footing with them. The language of the act of admission is, ‘on an equal footing with the original states in all respects whatever.’ 3 St. 536. Equality of constitutional right and power is the condition of all the states of the Union, old and new....”
Coyle v. Smith, 221 U.S. 559 (1911):
“...terms and conditions... in enabling acts, by which the new state disclaimed title to the public lands, and stipulated that such lands should remain subject to the sole disposition of the United States, and for their exemption from taxation, and that its navigable waters should forever remain open and free, etc. Such stipulations, as we shall see, being within the sphere of congressional power, can derive no force from the consent of the state. Like stipulations, as well as others in respect to the control of the United States of the large Indian reservations and Indian population of the new state, are found in the Oklahoma enabling acts. Whatever force such provisions have after the admission of the state may be attributed to the power of Congress over the subjects, derived from other provisions of the Constitution, rather than from any consent by or compact with the state.
“So far as this court has found occasion to advert to the effect of enabling acts as affirmative legislation affecting the power of new states after admission, there is to be found no sanction for the contention that any state may be deprived of any of the power constitutionally possessed by other states, as states, by reason of the terms in which the acts admitting them to the Union have been framed.”
...”It may well happen that Congress should embrace in an enactment introducing a new state into the Union legislation intended as a regulation of commerce among the states, or with Indian tribes situated within the limits of such new state, or regulations touching the sole care and disposition of the public lands or reservations therein, which might be upheld as legislation within the sphere of the plain power of Congress. But in every such case such legislation would derive its force not from any agreement or compact with the proposed new state, nor by reason of its acceptance of such enactment as a term of admission, but solely because the power of Congress extended to the subject, and therefore would not operate to restrict the state’s legislative power in respect of any matter which was not plainly within the regulating power of Congress. Willamette Iron Bridge Co. v. Hatch, 125 U.S. 1, 9, 31 S. L. ed. 629, 632, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 811; Pollard v. Hagan, supra.”
BTW, other than Indian reservation and discrete enclaves, Alaska is the only state I know of where the feds actually reserved land into their continued ownership after statehood.
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.