Posted on 12/04/2014 12:37:49 PM PST by george76
Transfer of Public Lands Act’ demands Washington relinquish 31.2 million acres by Dec. 31. In three weeks, Utah intends to seize control of 31.2 million acres of its own land now under the control of the federal government. At least, that’s the plan.
In an unprecedented challenge to federal dominance of Western state lands, Utah Gov. Gary Herbert in 2012 signed the “Transfer of Public Lands Act,” which demands that Washington relinquish its hold on the land, which represents more than half of the state’s 54.3 million acres, by Dec. 31.
...
With the 2012 law, Utah placed itself on the cutting edge of the heated debate over public lands in the West. The federal government controls more than 50 percent of the land west of Kansas — in Utah’s case, it’s 64.5 percent, a situation that has increasingly resulted in tensions across the Rocky Mountain West.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Colorado needs to do this. I know we won’t, with chickensucker in office, which breaks my heart. Colorado used to be home of the Mountain Men. Now it’s the home of men mounting men. Disgraceful for such a beautiful, rugged State
More states need to do this. It’s far beyond time to reign in the fed.
This ought to be interesting.
I like it.
And how much are they going to pay the federal government for it?
“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; 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...” - Section 3 of the Utah Enabling Act, 1894.
All land outside the original 13 states was originally owned by the federal government. Its sale paid for much of the government during the first few decades.
Then to encourage faster settlement they began giving it away as homesteads.
Don’t know about all states, but at least in MO the government was still selling off a lot of land in the early 19th and as late as the 50s/60s.
Most federal land in the West was available for homestead, mining claim or purchase thru the mid 20th. That it stayed in federal hands was mostly because nobody wanted to buy it. Or at least not under the terms available.
I’ve spent a LOT of time in the West. Most of the BLM land, anyway, is not worth much as land on which to earn a living. Obviously mineral rights makes a difference, but most land in the West away from water just isn’t worth anything from a productive POV.
Much of it IS beautiful. But then much of it also bears a close resemblance to a construction site on which work has been interrupted.
The Feds have been pernicious land managers, making life hard for both citizens and state and local law enforcement.
The fuse was lit when Bill Clinton sat on the south rim of the Grand Canyon in AZ and signed away the energy-rich Grand Staircase in UT as an untouchable wilderness. Power-drunk Fed agents from various agencies have messed with people and contributed to growing ill will. The Feds have also made life hard for people seeking the vast energy fields under the soil.
So here we are, at the point where states are taking action. Interesting times.
Idaho had a candidate for governor who wanted to do this - Russ Fulcher. But, the morons put B*tch Otter back into office. Believe me, B*tch won’t do a damned thing.
Why should the fed be paid for land the fed has no right to own in the first place?
Zip zero nada. It is Utah land that should have been turned over shortly after statehood and the enabling act. There are about fourteen other western states that have the same problem and it is hurting their economies.
See: http://www.americanlandscouncil.org/
I posted from the enabling act in reply 7.
Because it belongs to them and they realize revenue from it?
That part of the Enabling Act was in direct opposition of the limits listed in the Constitution on what the US gov can own in a state.
It is Utah land that should have been turned over shortly after statehood and the enabling act. As was the case with all states to the east of CO, but in the west the retention of land meant that those states were treated differently than those previously granted statehood. In reality the Federal government will still own the land. This is why it won’t be sold because 95 percent of the sale proceeds must be turned over to Uncle. Thus the land will be managed in the best interest of the state, and NOT sold.
The Constitution lists very clearly what the US gov is allowed to own within a state.
Ports for US Navy. Forts and armories for the US Army. District of Columbia. Land needful for buildings necessary for conducting the business of the US gov within the state. Right of ways to and from those.
The rest is only and has ever only been, a contra Constitutional power grab by the US gov.
There is another clause that deals with territories, but as we all know, territories are not states. Once a territory became a state, all limits upon the US gov concerning states must go into effect.
Hoo RAh... The feds OWNING any State land is obscene..
Short term Leasing maybe but not owning..
Utah and other lands were part of Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. The treaty called for the US to pay $15 million to Mexico and to pay off the claims of American citizens against Mexico up to $3.25 million.
Since the Federal Government bought it from Mexico, why do you claim they have no right to it?
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.