Skip to comments.Western lawmakers strategize on taking control of federal lands
Posted on 04/19/2014 5:45:13 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
Officials from nine Western states met in Salt Lake City on Friday to discuss taking control of federal lands within their borders on the heels of a standoff between Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and the Bureau of Land Management.
The lawmakers and county commissioners discussed ways to wresting oil-, timber- and mineral-rich lands away from the feds. --snip--
"What's happened in Nevada is really just a symptom of a much larger problem," Lockhart said, according to The Salt Lake Tribune.
The Legislative Summit on the Transfer of Public Lands, as it was called, was organized by Utah state Rep. Ken Ivory and Montana state Sen. Jennifer Fielder. Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, addressed the group over lunch, the Tribune reported.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Good point about the Feds being fiscally insolvent.
9th and 10th amendments most of all of the federal letter agencies are extra constitutional.
They need our support!
Is this COWS— Coalition Of Western States?
It isnt that hard. The feds manage that lands under a trust. So the first step is to declare they failed the trust and take the lands over. Proof? That is pretty easy to prove.
After the states take the management of the trust over, then claim the lands.
If these people would realize how much money can be had by taking these lands over, it wouldnt take them a year to do it.
Think oil leases..I.E.
I have never understood why when we are trillions in debt that the federal government still owns most of the land in the west.
We could sell most of that land, pay off the debt and still have money left over
“We could sell most of that land, pay off the debt and still have money left over.”
Sell the land to who?
Agree! But IMO a different approach to the same idea is better... simply declare that the Feds failed the trust and hence claim the land for the state. Make the Feds do something about taking it back.
And if many of the states do this simultaneously it would increase the effectiveness of the move imho.
Just take it. Isn't that what they would do? Just freakin' take it.
Land is worth $20 Trillion?
Clive Bundy has started a movement that is 100 years late in coming. The simple fact of the matteris that federal ownership of vast regions of the sovereign states is not authorized by the constitution.
Further federal stewardship of those lands has been a disaster.
It is long past time that this illegal domination of the states ends.
And it is long past time that we allow the Harry Reid’s of this country to continue to use the power of the government to line their pockets and enrich themselves and their families.
Clive Bundy is a brave and courageous American Patriot. He was 20 years ahead of his time. Perhaps if a hundred other ranchers had joined him 20 years ago and drew the line in the sand against the BLM and the crony politicians, we would not all be suffering from the heavy oppression of the boot of the tyrannical environmentalist nazis and their crony capitalist sponsors.
I Stand With Bundy!
the citizens of the united states
the mineral rights alone are probably worth more.
In the Constitution, there is no provision for the United States to own any land that is not directly associated with conducting the business of government and provision for military bases and arsenals. There is no provision for national parks, land management, national forests, those are all the legacy of the first round of progressives to invade the halls of government with ill intent to the citizens.
The land was “stolen” from its rightful owners, the states, when the western states were formed. Just take it back and give to them.
This is the way to go, Call the Feds and tell em its a ‘compromise’. The BLM takes its army and leaves Nevada, and Nevada will collect the taxes and administer the lands.
This doesn’t wipe clean the injustice of Washington Refusing to sell the land like they did in all the States east of Colorado but it does ease the burden and provide a road-map towards a long term resolution.
Just as importantly it will resolve the issue with Bundy, by allowing the locals and State to take over with appropriate levels of presentation (no armies or bulling).
It also makes the injustice facing theses 15 western states less difficult to bare. by giving locals at least some more reasonable say in how the ‘public’ lands upon which their livelihoods depend is administered.
There is no justifiable reason to allow the BLM to build an army and invade Nevada, Utah, California, or any of the other 15 western states they now occupy. That is an unacceptable and inappropriate level of force that looks more like an invasion than law enforcement.
Let the people and State of Nevada take care of their own.
Harry Reid just sold a big chunk to China. Some other corrupt poltitician might choose to sell Alaska back to Russia.
The Land, except for military bases and necessary government buildings, does not belong to the federal Goverment. It belongs to the people of the state in which it is bordered.
The land should be turned over to the states period. It should belong to them.
Two years or so ago there was a fire in Northern Nevada on BLM and NFS land burned 525 square miles Wiped out some very productive sage hen areas.
the feds claimed they made it a tier one event but it was poorly managed and all available assets were not put on the fire early on and it wound up getting away from them.
Not the first time nor the last. That said now they are pushing to list sage hens as endangered and stop hunting of them. Incompetence of a bigger plan?
huh? what the heck are you talking about?
I just said the federal government should sell all the land in west to the people of the united states and use the money to pay off the national debt.
And some how that makes me love China!?!
lol drink some coffee, because I don’t think you are fully awake this morning.
“the citizens of the united states”
Why should we buy our own land? Our taxes already go to pay for the BLM and their activities. It’s like paying a fee to get your own money out of the bank.
I do see where you are coming from, though. If the land was sold to ranchers, farmers, recreational operators and businesses those purchases, in addition to the taxes generated could be used strictly for debt relief.
With Fracking and new drilling methods, the resources can be harvested without damaging the environment.
Yea, although i think he understates the sheer scale of the problem in the west.
Its not simply the taxes for our schools, the bully army of the BLM or even fair land uses disputes that fall on Washington’s Deaf ears. From this Federal land Washington Dictates everything from water policy(A most scare and critical resource in the west) to air quality policy’s with a level of detail and control that would offend any eastern state, and in itself significantly inhibits the economic opportunity of the West.
This is an enormous issue, indeed measuring by sheer land areas it is the largest issue in the west. who has for too long had to live under this growing problem.
The western state must be allowed to buy their land, just like the eastern states were!
“Why should we buy our own land? Our taxes already go to pay for the BLM and their activities. Its like paying a fee to get your own money out of the bank.”
I agree it is, but we are going have a hard time convening greedy eastern to give up their death grip on our lands for free. But we can overtime buy the land just as they did before Washington unilaterally stopped selling it in the 1970’s.
That is the deal we can both live with. Washington Needs the money and we need the land out of their bureaucratic hands.
That is amazing, D.C. horde less land in the federal District Where they are suppose to own everything, than they do in Nevada or any other western state!
Talk about rubbing salt in to the wound of injustice!
100 times more.
The federal government owns 628,801,639 acres.
The federal debt is ~$17.6 trillion. http://www.usdebtclock.org/
$28 thousand an acre for mostly desert scrub brush?
Sorry, what I pasted in italics was not what I copied.
My point is that the Land belongs to the individual States and not the Federal Government.
Selling the land to pay off the national debt is not a legal option.
Harry Reid seems to think he can sell it to China to line his own pockets. That's the kind of stewardship we have come to expect from federal ownership.
Not by a long shot. Mineral rights often sell for a few hundred dollars an acre. It is in the royalties, share of minerals actually produced that contains the real payments.
I bet a lot of states, not just those in the West would like to get these lands under their control. I presume Congress can make this decision. Hopefully, it can be raised as an issue with a bill that could garner support.
Mineral rights have historically sold on the cheap.
When I was mining coal, we gave the land owner $1 per ton (which was higher than usual) while the coal sold for $36/ton fob the mine.
I agree, but you should remember In Nevada or any other State land Owned in title by any foreign government is no different than land owned in title by any private owner. It is Subject to the laws & taxes of the State.
The problem in the west with Federal land is that that land is NOT subject to the laws of the State, It can’t be tax, so there is no cost to horde it, and it is often used as legal justification for other federal impositions upon the neighbors. (basically the whole state in the west)
Let China buy the title, it doesn’t matter who owns it, as long as its not Washington they won’t be in a position to horde and lord over it like Washington does abusively. Because China cannot claim supremacy over our State laws.
You are talking about royalties, not mineral rights.
Mineral rights, the right to go explore and then pay royalties on what you produce, is far less.
“I bet a lot of states, not just those in the West would like to get these lands under their control. I presume Congress can make this decision. Hopefully, it can be raised as an issue with a bill that could garner support.”
That is unfortunately not the case, out east your talking less than 10% and the land the Feds do retain are simply not worthy of State or private attention in most cases.
Indeed a lot of the lands in the west are even particularly valuable at this time, just as most of the lands the Feds now hold in the west weren’t particularity valuable.
But populations grow and technology changes making lands once unworthy of buying valuable and needed again.
What there is left in the East is only a small faction of the State, Yes no doubt a lot of eastern states would like to take management and tax control over some of it but not all.
All the west really needs is the same right to buy the land the East has enjoyed for more than 200 years. It was the losing of this right in the 1970’s that started the sagebrush rebellion, and numerous other major economic obsticals in the west that eastern don’t have to deal with.
All the west wants is an equal footing with the east in regard to their state’s land. Is that too much to ask?
Simply done - A constitutional amendment that limits federal ownership of lands within a state to 20 percent.
Again, the fed nearly always has a fire sale on the mineral rights and royalties for valuable minerals, plus there is rarely any regard to reclamation of mined lands (except for coal.) Mining companies snap up these sales, then sit on them for decades to protect the value of their current extractions.
I am in my 9th decade and in all my days never did I think that I would see this nation in such a condition that the states themselves would be talking about secession-like actions. It is living proof of what can happen when good men sit silent and do nothing.
The u tube mentions a mineral that is needed to produce jet fuel. It is abundant in the land Reid already owns and in the area where Bundys cows graze. Not worthless grazing land!
Don’t forget Hillary’s 2009 trip using eminent domain on federal land as collateral for our loans from the Chinese
mineral rights, could be nearly priceless.
My family owns mineral rights on land in several areas of Texas and even though we only own a fraction of a percent of the minerals we regularly get unsolicted offers of half a million or more for them. Now... this is JUST the mineral rights, we don’t even own the land anymore.
Much of this land by the way would appear to be just worthless scrub if you were to see it while driving by.
Now imagine how much federal land in scenic areas like Wyoming and Colorado is worth.
Agreed. Just take it and kick any federal worker off the property.
jet fuel is kerosene,not even a good grade at that.
I just disagree with the assumption that NV must pay to gain control over the 81% of the state now under control of the Feds. First, where will the money come from? State taxpayers? IMO the goal should be return of most of the federal land to the states without any requirement to purchase it. Is that too much to ask?
Right now, the federal government can sell or lease land to individuals and private investors. The feds have a vested interest in keeping this property and realizing any gains from it.
The Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act (FLTFA), Public Law 106-248, became law on July 25, 2000. It provides for the sale of public lands identified for disposal under land use plans in effect as of the date of enactment. The revenue generated from FLTFA sales is split between the respective State (4%) for educational purposes or for the construction of public roads, and a special account (96%) available to the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture for acquisition of land in certain federally designated areas, and for administrative expenses necessary to carry out the sale program.
The FLTFA expired on July 24, 2010. On July 29, 2010, Congress passed an emergency supplemental appropriations bill to extend FLTFA for one year. Because of the break in FLTFAs authority, the BLM lost all unspent funds for sale processing generated during the first ten years. The administration and sales account is slowly being rebuilt through deposits of revenue from land sale and exchange of public lands since July 24, 2010.
Public Law 111-11
On March 30, 2009, President Obama signed into law an omnibus lands bill that enhances protection for public lands administered by the BLM across the West. The Omnibus Public Lands Management Act (P.L. 111-11), authorized the sale of BLM-administered lands within the Boise District in Ada, Adams, Boise, Canyon, Elmore, Gem, Owyhee, Payette, Valley, and Washington Counties, Idaho and the St. George Field Office in Washington County, Utah.
Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 - Public Law 105-263 (No doubt Harry Reid wrote this bill to help himself and his cronies)
The Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act (SNPLMA) of 1998, Public Law 105-263, became law in October 1998. It allows the BLM to sell public land within a specific boundary around Las Vegas, Nevada. A key provision of the law is that money generated by these land sales remains in Nevada. The money provides funding for a variety of land management activities emphasizing recreation sites. Up to 85% of the funds received may be used for:
Acquisition of environmentally sensitive land in the State of Nevada, with priority given to lands located within Clark County;
Capital improvements at the Lake Meade National Recreation area, the Desert National Wildlife Refuge, the Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area and the Spring Mountains National Recreation Area (subject to an annual limitation);
Development of a multi-species habitat conservation plan in Clark County; and
Development of parks, trails, and natural areas in Clark County.
Other provisions in the SNPLMA direct certain land sale and acquisition procedures, direct the BLM to convey title of land in the McCarran Airport noise zone to Clark County, and provide for the sale of land for affordable housing.
Listen to this all the way thru. It’s my source!
The Chinese are salivating and probably deals are already in place for them to have those lands.
Also bear in mind the plans of UN Agenda 21. Confiscate all public lands, herd the population into “population centers,” put “green corridors” between them and restrict travel and access to those green corridors.
If this sounds crazy, please do some reading on it. For those who are not aware and up to speed on this topic, here is a thread a number of freepers participated in for over a year studying this:
Post 128 of the thread contains a summary of a bit of history and what it is all about, plus reading references.
I've come to believe all the TLA US agencies are coordinating to accomplish that.
“We could sell most of that land, pay off the debt and still have money left over.”
Who’s we kimosabe? That land is held in trust. The Feds don’t “own” it. They need to have “control of it” it taken from them as has been proposed previously in this post. Then the states can individually decide how to utilize it. Making it productive would reduce the states debt and make it possible for the Feds to get out from under their “subsidizing” the states with federally collected tax money. The only problem for the feds will be that they will loose their “management cut” from the federal taxes they’ve been collecting so they could re-dole it out back to those who paid it. Federal taxes are the biggest ponzu scheme I’ve ever seen.
I think that is a plausible assumption. Thanks for the map.
How many acres?
I’ve sold mineral rights as well.
This has a snowballs chance in hell under the present administration. However, with a Republican Congress and President, this could happen.
The founders of our Republic would be appalled at the size and power of the Federal Government. They were afraid of this and this is why the Constitution of the United States is mostly restraints on the Federal Government. It clearly states what powers the Federal Government. It gives all the other powers to the respective states as outlined in the tenth amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
The Federal government is clearly operating in an unconstitutional manner on many fronts. The only reason they can do this is a judiciary that is politicized.