Utah is suing the federal government for control of “unappropriated” public lands with elected officials wanting the U.S. Supreme Court to rule on whether the government can hold claim to those lands indefinitely.
Gov. Spencer Cox, Attorney General Sean Reyes and other state officials announced the lawsuit during a press conference Tuesday morning in Salt Lake City that was accompanied by a news release to the media.
Nearly 70% of Utah is comprised of land managed by federal agencies like the Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Forest Service, National Park Service and others. Around half of that land is appropriated via congressional designation for a specific use, such as being a national monument or park, protected wilderness area, national forest, tribal land or military property, according to the news release.
The remaining half – around 18.5 million acres – is “unappropriated,” or has no designated purpose, state officials argue the government should not be able to hold on to that land in perpetuity.
“When the federal government controls two-thirds of Utah, we are extremely limited in what we can do to actively manage and protect our natural resources,” Cox said in the news release. “We are committed to ensuring that Utahns of all ages and abilities have access to public lands. The BLM has increasingly failed to keep these lands accessible and appears to be pursuing a course of active closure and restriction. It is time for all Utahns to stand for our land.”
The lawsuit is the latest attempt by Utah’s elected officials to gain a measure of control over public lands within the state. In 2012, then Gov. Gary Herbert signed a bill demanding the government turn control of public lands to the state by the end of 2014. The deadline quietly came and went with public lands still under federal control and the call for a state takeover continuing unabated
Longstanding arguments made against federal management are many. Among the chief points of local-control proponents are claims the federal government increasingly restricts access to public lands and limits how they may be used. This has negative impacts on the social and economic lives of Utah’s people, they claim.
The news release goes on the state that Utah is “deprived of a significant measure of sovereignty compared to other states” due to the federal government holding on to land it is not using. It also compared Utah to eastern states like Delaware and Maine where the public lands make up 3% or less of the land within them.
“Nothing in the text of the Constitution authorizes such an inequitable practice,” Reyes said. “In fact, the framers of the Constitution carefully limited federal power to hold land within states. Current federal land policy violates state sovereignty and offends the original and most fundamental notions of federalism.”
Opposition to Utah’s lawsuit is already mounting as environmental advocacy groups have issued statements condemning the action.
“This lawsuit isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on,” Aaron Wells, the deputy director for the Denver-based Center for Western Priorities, said. “130 years ago, the people of Utah agreed to ‘forever disclaim all right and title’ to national public lands when Utah became a state. What part of ‘forever’ isn’t clear to you, governor? The property clause of the Constitution gives Congress, and only Congress, authority to transfer or dispose of federal lands. That’s the beginning, middle and end of this lawsuit.
“Governor Cox and the state Legislature need to make a U-turn before they waste millions of taxpayer dollars enriching out-of-state lawyers on this pointless lawsuit.”
Wells’ argument refers to the Utah Enabling Act of 1894 and the “property clause” of the U.S. Constitution.
The enabling act states the people of Utah “forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within the boundaries thereof,” while the clause in the Constitution states, “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; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.”
The Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance also commented on the lawsuit, and called it an “election-year stunt.”
“With today’s announcement, Utah has firmly established itself as the most anti-public lands state in the country,” Steve Bloch, SUWA’s legal director, said.
“Utahns and visitors travel to our state to experience stunning red rock canyons, spires and mesas; public lands that are owned by all Americans and managed on their behalf by the federal government and its expert agencies. All of that is at risk with Utah’s saber rattling and insistence that many of these remarkable landscapes are instead ‘state lands’ that should be developed and ultimately destroyed by short-sighted state politicians. The Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance strongly opposes Utah’s efforts and will work to keep public lands protected.”
In addition to the lawsuit, the state has gone on to launch the “Stand for Our Land” website along with a series of short videos highlighting points of their argument for state control of the unappropriated public lands.
Copyright St. George News, SaintGeorgeUtah.com LLC, 2024, all rights reserved.