When
UN Agenda 21 implementation began in the US in 1993, federal agencies were
directed to increase conservation land and implement the “Wilding
Project”. Citizens who are under attack
are urging their States to stand up to this unconstitutional threat.
States
are now claiming ownership of the “federal lands” in their state in response to
federal abuse and overreach. The States
with the most “federal land” are: Nevada
84.5% Alaska 69.1% Utah 57.5% Oregon 53.1% Idaho 50.2% Arizona 48.1% California
45.3% Wyoming 42.3% New Mexico 41.8% Colorado 36.6%m Washington 30.3% Montana 29.9%
and Hawaii 19.4%. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/03/23/us/western-land-owned-by-the-federal-government.html?_r=0
Sources:
U.S. Geological Survey; 2004 Federal Real Property Report, U.S. General
Services Administration
Western states eye federal lands—again The ultra-right ‘remedy’ for public lands. Brian Calvert Oct. 27, 2014 In September, Southern Utah University hosted a debate in Cedar City, Utah, over the management of public lands. Close to 250 people packed the auditorium on a Thursday night as two University of Utah professors, Bob Keiter and Dan McCool, debated two state legislators, House Speaker Becky Lockhart and Rep. Ken Ivory. Utah is ground zero this year for an attempt by some Western states to claim federal lands. The professors argued that public-land management by federal agencies, however messy it might appear, remains necessary, given the costs and the myriad interests involved, and that a land transfer would certainly fail in court. Lockhart replied that federal mismanagement was responsible for bark beetle infestations and devastating wildfires. Flashing a photograph of a dead bull elk that had been caught in a fire, she railed: “This is a representation of the animals that are slaughtered because of lack of management.” Ivory pointed to a map of the United States that contrasted the West’s vast public lands with the East’s obvious lack of them. “Why the difference?” he asked, rhetorically.
The
answer, of course, has to do with federal land purchases from France, Mexico
and Russia, between 1781 and 1867, as well as the seizures of territory from
Native Americans, all of which created U.S. public lands. But Ivory, a business
lawyer and the newest champion of federal-to-state land transfers, did not
delve into any of that. Instead, he denounced the federal government’s
“one-size fails all” management policy, saying the states could do better on
their own.
Ivory
sponsored Utah’s Transfer of Public Lands Act, which was signed into law in
2012 and insists that the feds turn over 20 million acres of public land. He
claims the government promised to someday transfer land to the states, pointing
to ambiguous language in Utah’s statehood legislation. During the Cedar City
debate, McCool, who is the director of the University of Utah’s Environmental
and Sustainability Studies Program, told the crowd no such “magic promise”
exists. “These lands right now belong to all of us, all 314 million Americans,”
he said. “I think that’s a pretty good setup.”
Keiter,
a law professor and director of the Wallace Stegner Center of Land, Resources,
and the Environment at the University of Utah, explained later that Ivory’s
legal argument, if it were to ever find support in the courts, would give all
federal land in the West to the states, which have similar statehood
legislation. “The entire public-land system that we all know, and most of us
greatly appreciate, (would be) gone,” he said.
In
Utah, some polls show more than half of voters support a public-land transfer.
But region-wide, there is less enthusiasm. A recent poll by the Center for
American Progress found 52 percent opposed to the idea, compared to 42 percent
in favor. And while Westerners still like to gripe about the federal
government overall, the National Park Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife, and
Forest Service all had approval ratings higher than 70 percent. (The Bureau of
Land Management had a rating of only 48 percent.)
Proponents of a public land transfer to the
states would rather see areas like this, the Beaver Dam Wash National
Conservation Area, out of the hands of federal agencies.
So
it would be easy to dismiss Ivory’s vision of a Brave New West as a pipedream,
perfectly timed to fire up the far-right base for a midterm election. But 42
percent in favor is not a small number. And while Western states have made
similar demands in the past that have gone nowhere, this recent iteration is
worthy of attention: It is backed by big money, and it is gaining quiet
momentum.
Over
the last two years, eight Western states have pursued this idea in one way or
another. Wyoming has a task force currently studying legal avenues for a land
transfer. Arizona passed a bill like Utah’s in 2012, but Republican Gov. Jan
Brewer vetoed it. And last month, Montana lawmakers tabled their own version;
it remains to be seen whether its next Legislature will take up the issue.
Proponents
often point to Ivory’s legislation as a model. Ivory has championed the idea in
speeches across the region as president of the American Lands Council, a
nonprofit that supports public-land transfers. Council members include 46
county boards of commissioners, who pay heavy dues with taxpayer dollars, as
well as private interests, including Canyon Construction, a mining construction
company, the Nevada Cattlemen’s Association and Deseret Power. Americans for
Prosperity, a powerful dark-money group founded by the billionaires Charles and
David Koch, is also a member of the group.
Ivory’s
rhetoric, meanwhile, resembles the language put out by the American Legislative
Exchange Council, or ALEC, a consortium of corporations that produces “model”
legislation for ultra-conservative state lawmakers across the country. Federal
ownership of the land “prevents the states from accessing the abundant natural
resources contained on those lands,” ALEC claims in one such model. “This
resolution seeks to remedy this situation.”
Examined
closely, though, the “remedy” looks more like snake oil. Keiter, the law
professor, points out that historically, in land transfers and exchanges, the
federal government did not grant mineral rights to known reserves. Without
mineral rights, the states could not afford to manage the lands they’d obtain
under the scheme. The Denver-based Center for Western Priorities notes in a
recent study that the burdens of fighting wildfires alone could easily
overwhelm states. In Idaho in 2012, for instance, the U.S. Forest Service spent
$169 million on fire suppression — more than three times the state’s
law-enforcement spending.
“Proponents
of this measure are conveniently silent on how they would afford these costs
without raising taxes or selling the land or throwing it open to mining and
drilling,” says Jessica Goad, advocacy director at the center. Indeed, those
with the most to gain from land transfers are the corporations that back
Ivory’s nonprofit.
In
an interview, Ivory said that Utah has put aside $2 million to prepare
potential litigation against the feds, and that the state will want mineral
rights, too. “When you manage land, you manage the whole estate,” he said.
His
allies are still looking for ways to make the transfer work — or at least get
people excited about the prospect. On Oct. 9, the American Lands Council hosted
more than 80 officials from 14 states to discuss the land-transfer initiative.
That kind of support means the issue is not going away, Ivory said. “The genie
is out of the bottle.”
This story was originally titled "Bad
medicine" in the print edition.
http://www.hcn.org/issues/46.18/western-states-eye-federal-lands-again
No comments:
Post a Comment