Federal Government Needs To Honor Promise

Advertisement

In response to the article in Payson Roundup by Pete Aleshire, “Proposition challenges control of federal lands,” we would like to present the case for retrieval of Arizona’s public lands.

The foundational issue for Arizona and the western land states is economic. Additionally, the Arizona Cattlemen’s Association, as well as the Arizona Farm Bureau, two very mainstream organizations, endorse Proposition 120.

This past legislative session, the Utah Legislature passed the Transfer of Public Lands Act (iHB148 2012). This bill enjoyed the bipartisan support of nearly 80 percent of the Utah Legislature.

photo

Chester Crandell

photo

Brenda Barton

... iithe proceedings of the signing ceremony, the Transfer of Public Lands Act was broadly supported by a wide coalition of stakeholders from school districts to the congressional delegation.

Since passing this landmark legislation, legislators and leaders in several other western states (New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Idaho, Wyoming, etc.) are preparing similar bills to join with Utah in the effort to compel the federal government to merely honor to the western states, iiithe same promise to “extinguish title” to the public lands that it made and kept with the states east of Colorado.

The question has been asked: Why should the last 10 states in the lower 48 enter the Union unequally from the first 38 states? Shouldn’t the western states enjoy the same economic advantages of land, as have the first 38 states following independence?

During the Centennial Year and 50th Session of the Arizona Legislature, legislation was introduced in Arizona similar to that signed into law in neighboring Utah. ivThe motive is simple: net private lands comprise less than 15 percent of Arizona’s land area. We receive Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) from the national government rather than the full values of the lands were they to be taxed as private lands. PILT is simply more national debt.

Returning public lands to the state as originally practiced, would allow for both the wise stewardship of the lands as well as allowing Arizona to realize the economic potential of the lands within our borders. Presently we sit helplessly as millions of acres are destroyed by wildfire due to the best of intentions, but questionable management practices.

There is solid law and history to support this endeavor. First however, the “old normal” must be replaced by facts long since forgotten.

In the 1830s and 1840s, the federal government had for decades retained control (and failed to dispose) of nearly 90 percent of the public lands in Illinois and other “western states” of that era. Those states iunderstood vthe history of the “great national public trust” to dispose of the public lands (a) only to create new states and (b) to use the proceeds only to pay down the national debt, vi(ii)they knew their rights (see page 3 of the link for example), vii(ii)they banded together, and ivthey refused to take no for an answer in demanding the transfer of title to their public lands so they could fund education, grow their economies, foster abundant, well-paying jobs, through the responsible deployment of their rich and plentiful minerals and natural resources.

They were ultimately successful in compelling Congress to dispose of virtually all of their public lands under the Graduated Price Act of 1854, to the benefit of these states and to the greater economic vitality of the nation. Today, the “western states” of the 1830s have only about 3 to 4 percent federally controlled lands.

The federal government’s promise at statehood to “extinguish title” to (to dispose of) the public lands in the “western states” of the 1830s is in many cases word-for-word the same as the promise to today’s western states which the federal government has failed to honor.

Today more than 50 percent of all lands in the West are still controlled by the federal government. In Gila County, for example, federally managed lands comprise over 96 percent.

Today’s western states have trillions of dollars of abundant minerals and natural resources viii(in fact according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office, Utah, Colorado and Wyoming have more recoverable oil than the rest of the world combined) locked up in federally controlled lands, while their ixchildren suffer with the toughest ability to increase education funding and with nearly 50 percent of their state budgets derived from a fiscally suicidal federal government.

Today’s western states also suffer from federal mismanagement of the public lands that is xdoubling the acreage of wildfires, doubling the intensity of these fires, doubling the cost to do so, all the while spewing billions of pounds of pollution, killing tens of millions of animals, destroying life and property, and decimating vital watershed for decades. The recent Wallow Fire alone set Arizona’s endangered species back generations. Our great-grandchildren will still see the scars of that environmental catastrophe.

The historic facts are irrefutable as is legal precedent. Arizona is capable of managing our lands for both environmental preservation as well as economic development. Wise local management and use of Arizona’s native wealth, will yield a fine harvest for our schools, our citizens’ health care, our aging infrastructure, and it will create jobs independent of the federal government — all the while providing for generations, the beauty of Arizona’s public lands.

With the restoration of Arizona’s public lands, we can provide for our children’s future without the old paradigm of constant rounds of “enhanced investments” better known as “tax increases.” For the Arizona and, the western land states, this can become the “new normal.”

Endnotes:

i

http://le.utah.gov/~2012/bills/hbillenr/HB0148.htm

ii

http://arewenotastate.com/bill-signing.html

iii

http://americanlandscouncil.org/quick-fact—3-did-we-really-give-up-our-lands.html

iv

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/50leg/2r/bills/hcm2002p.pdf

v

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/50leg/2r/bills/hb2562p.pdf

vi

http://arewenotastate.com/documents/Land%20Bill%20Veto%20Andrew%20Jackson.pdf

vii

http://arewenotastate.com/documents/HB148%20Outlines.pdf

viii

http://americanlandscouncil.org/quick-fact—5-congress-and-eastern-states-made-the-case.html

ix

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/gao-recoverable-oil-colorado-utah-wyoming-about-equal-entire-world-s-proven-oil

x

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y39bJY-fpQw&feature=player_embedded

xi

http://americanlandscouncil.org/quick-fact—4-owner-occupied-vs.-absentee-public-land-management.html

Comments

ALLAN SIMS 2 years, 3 months ago

I don’t consider myself a tree hugger, but I do enjoy long hikes on the rim and in the associated canyons. I lived back east for most of my life. In most of those states, there is a crowding like you would not believe, if you grew up here in Payson, or anywhere along the rim, for that matter.

I am an avid user of national forests and national parks. Getting 30 miles from the nearest phone is a blessing for those of us able to do it. And, I’m grateful to Teddy Roosevelt who had the foresight to set some land aside to do that in.

But, this article is spot on; for it is excessive what the BLM and the National Forest Service are doing to what should rightfully belong to Arizona, Utah, Wyoming and so forth.

How do some folks wrangle a homestead in the pines, when others are given the cold shoulder when it comes to the same request? I guess it’s who you know, not what is right. If you are lucky, the average Joe gets 1/10th acre which is just enough for a foundation, and a driveway. And, that is in a subdivision that is just like living in town. I grew up in the country where you couldn’t see the next house, let alone be able to see the neighbor taking a shower, as in these subdivisions.

When I first crossed the rim on foot years ago, I ran across timber cutting areas that were properly managed, and seldom saw a fire path. I saw cattle grazing almost everywhere. Now, try that. No cattle the last several years, that I’ve seen. Fences wasted, too. Fires swaths prevalent in several places.

Now, I’m not for opening up the land to the extent that the eastern states did. Go try to enjoy the outdoors there, and you’ll get run off just about any piece of land you step on. In Texas for example, there are deer leases that make up much land owner’s income, usually more so than grazing. If you want to pay $2,000+ per gun, you have the run of that ranch (Usually about 600 acres or so) all year long. But, look what you get. You’re limited to just those 600 acres. And Texas is an awfully big state. But, if you don’t have the $2,000 per year to sit in a blind and shoot Bambi, or the inclination, you are stuck going to the small state parks around the state.

Texas provides a lot of funds to run those parks, but the largest of those is around 1,000 acres, while the state owns huge chunks of the territory. They just can’t afford to make it available to the public.

In Illinois, you can hunt, and that’s about it, with the landowner’s permission. The rest of the eastern states are like that, too; or worse. Only along the Appalachians can you find an area large enough to ‘get away’. And, that’s due to gov’t ownership as well.

What I’ve led up to, is balance. Not just opening up for those able to buy the land and develop it, but to keep enough set aside that the term wilderness means more than a rat hole here or there that is less than 10 miles across, so that those not buying the land can enjoy some too.

0

Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.