American Indians first to face land-grab controversy

Of the hundreds of new legislative bills signed into law this week by Gov. Gary Herbert, two of the most controversial had to do with an old subject: land.

House Bill 141 is titled "Recreational Use of Public Water on Private Property" and severely restricts the crossing of farms, ranches, estates, golf courses, hunting preserves and other privately owned property to get to your favorite fishing hole and kayak spot.

House Bill 143 is titled "Eminent Domain Authority" and authorizes the state of Utah to take over property owned by the federal government within the boundaries of the state unless the property was acquired by consent of the legislature. Since the state Legislature has rarely consented to such a thing, and since over 60 percent of Utah land is owned by the federal government, HB143 amounts to one of the bigger land grabs in history.

Both issues are anticipated — indeed, expected — to run into further buzz saws of dispute. Therein lies their purpose.

The governor said he signed The Fishing Non-Rights Bill as a way of getting sportsmen and landowners into the same room so they can hammer out an agreement that better illuminates and considers the concerns of each side. Hopefully, through common ground dialogue, fishermen and river rafters will become more conscious of respecting private property and owners of private property will better understand and respond to access needs of fishermen and river rafters.

As for The Land Grab Bill, the governor's lawyers admitted that its immediate goal isn't to poke Bill Clinton in the metaphorical eye and start mining coal in Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. (That's for down the road.) Its immediate goal is to spark a lawsuit that will get the U.S. Supreme Court to rule more clearly (and hopefully more liberally) on the issue of the sovereign land rights of states. Already, $3 million has been set aside to pay the lawyers.

It's all very civilized.

But what I'm waiting to see is what will happen if the Indians decide to get involved.

What if the Native Americans lawyer up?

This must be highly amusing to them.

Who better than the original inhabitants to note the irony of a state passing a bill respecting the rights of property owners from people (sportsmen) who want to use the land for their own purposes while at the same time — and in the same legislative session! — passing a bill disrespecting the rights of property owned by the federal government so it can be used for the state's own purposes?