Comments about ‘Utah Legislature: Bills seeks to reclaim certain federal lands, provides funding for legal battle’

Lets just call Rep. Chris Herrod's HB143 by its proper name, the Mike Lee enrichment with no chance of winning act.

DUMB - I think the legislature is wasting their time and my money!

Utah got more State Lands at statehood than most states and were scattered deliberately (maybe not wisely) but nevertheless there have been questions regarding the State's ability to properly manage some of the land it has now.

A better solution might be some exchanges where the State will get lands in blocks where it has access and where management will be easier than for scattered inaccessable tracts. There have been some nice exchanges in the past. Just calcualte the value of the current State Lands and the Federal Lands that the State wants and see if you can make an equal value deal.

Most Federal agencies have been willing to work with states or other landowners to see if they can work out exchanges overall agreeable to both.

The bill is DUMB in my opion and will accomplish nothing and may even move things in a negative direction.

Many will say Utah does have a claim of abuse by the Federal Government regarding public lands. They look at the Enabling act in doing so. It is true that the Enabling Act to allow Utah to become a state did require Utah to "agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within the boundaries thereof". One must also realize that through the Equal Footing Doctrine, confirmed through the US Supreme Court when Alabama became a state that all states entering the Union should be able to do so on the same or equal footing of the original states. "The equal footing doctrine is a limitation only upon the terms by which Congress admits a State. That is, States must be admitted on an equal footing in the sense that Congress may not exact conditions solely as a tribute for admission, but it may, in the enabling or admitting acts or subsequently impose requirements that would be or are valid and effectual if the subject of congressional legislation after admission." In otherwords, there is an argument for Utah to claim this federal land back. I hope the Utah legislation prevails.

this state can not afford the servivalist mentality that the state is taking and can not win in court. the state is out of money. people in provo dont vote for these foolish people anymore.

Idea is stupid. We belong to a federal system, not a state's rights system.

Good grief, did the leg. fella skip school? We learned that in the 4th grade, 5th grade... college, and the real world.

OH, I am sorry, it is politics. You should be ashamed for taking up money and time with this Don Q. act. Ashamed.

If Utah had a track record of protecting and preserving land I might agree but they dont. this is just an argument propelled by mining and ranching ineterests and dont consider the Utah population generally.

The bottom line is preservation one way or the other; please dont get sidetracked from the objective.

You said it, we are a federal system. Federal=federation. We are a federation of separate states that allows the federal government certain enumerated things under Article 1 Section 8 that they are able to do.

And it is well within the rights of the states to return the balance of power back to the states and to local control.

This is what our legislature is focused on??? Sheesh

Almost 70% of Utah land is owned by the federal government and much of it was promised to be remitted to Utah in the future as a condition of statehood. It hasn't and we should fight back in any way we can.

This is land that could be used to educate our children since much of it would revert to SITLA and the rest that eventually was sold to the private sector would make up a tax base that would increase the amount of money for education.

I applaud legislators willing to try and take back what is rightfully ours.

It must be understood why this is being proposed. Ken Salazar, the federal land czar, has tied up thousands of acres of Utah State-owned land so it cannot be use for anything - mining, drilling, grazing, or any use that could generate revenue to the State of Utah. So, if we here in Utah need money to fund the ongoing costs of running the State -its schools, prisons, highways, etc. a good source of revenue would, and could come from leases on State lands. The only chance we have to wrest control over our own land from the federal government is to declare it eminent domain. Otherwise, kiss it goodbye forever. Furthermore, if Mike Lee were not going to be our next Senator, it would be a good choice, enhancing the chances of winning this case, and have him represent the State of Utah in the lawsuit. I support the bill wholeheartedly.

I wish we had a few audacious Democratic lawmakers who would stand up and speak out passionately about an issue even though they know they would probably not get re-elected. There is a large portion of Salt Lake County whose voices are not being heard because of fear while Republicans, because they know they'll easily get re-elected, can say and do anything they want without fear of repercussions.

"Idea is stupid. We belong to a federal system, not a state's rights system."

A federal system IS a states rights system. There are certain enumerated powers that belong to the national government, and everthing else is reserved to the states. It is true that laws of the national government are supreme, but those laws must be withing the scope of the national government's powers. It is the national government that is more limited under federalism, because it is restricted to those areas in which it has enumerated powers. States have more broad powers because every power under the sun not specifically given to the national government is reserved to the states. The fact that the national government has supremacy within its scope of enumerated powers does not mean that it has absolute power over the states.

How nice for Representative Mathis to talk about putting "our money where our mouth is." The money belongs to our public schools. Find someone else to pay for your tea party. Our schools deserve better.

Why is this legislation being proposed? Is it some altruistic thrust by our legislature? With their track record? Nope. It is being proposed so that the rich can buy up, develop, and lock up public lands, excluding us (the public) from access. Just follow the money on this one and see which legislators will benefit the most. With the State's record of taking care of "public lands" within its jurisdiction, I would say goodbye to some of the most beautiful places in Utah. Drill rigs in the Swell? or in Arches? No thanks. Shale oil development? Have you ever see what is left? I will take federal control over this State's management any day!

This has got to be the stupidest bill among a plethora of stupid bills pouring out of the legislature this term. The Legislative General Counsel's office thinks its unconstitutional, and makes very cogent arguments why. Mike Lee makes no arguments, only political assertions that make it sound like he is in South Carolina in the early 1860's. The Civil War was fought over such issues, and the supremacy of federal law has prevailed ever since.
Herrod says "I am not a gambling man, but if someone were to say I could put a quarter in a machine and had a chance to get a billion dollars, I would put that quarter in." Well, put your own quarter in if you want, but don't put mine in.
Have you forgotten that even if you could win this lawsuit, which is virtually impossible, eminent domain law requires the acquiring authority to pay just compensation for the property it takes. So not only do you waste taxpayer money fighting a losing lawsuit, even if you won you would have to find the money to pay fair market value for the land. Money that would come from taxpayers, no doubt.

Just secede and get it over with. Even if you strip mine every national park down to an open pit it will still be a third world country here, but at least we'll stop taking more tax money from other states than we pay in and save their taxpayers the expense of supporting us and paying for the lawsuits we're creating to "send a message".

why doesn't just secede. I think we should also annex Hill AFB, and turn it into a bunch of nondescript tract houses. There has to be some developer that wants that land. And surely there has to be some elected Joe that would love to help him out in exchange for a nice contribution to his elect me fund. I also think we should return all federal highway funds, because that is state land too. Come to think of it, the state should just reject all federal funding. Sell enough oil contracts to Texas companies, Utah wouldn't need any federal funds. And since it wouldn't be a state anymore, that would be perfect. We could even have our own state militia since federal funds will be gone from the Guard. And then we could make it a religous theocracy.... we got it all figured out.

Millions of dollars, on an idea that the Legislature's own attorneys ridiculed in the legal notes, and only the PTA spoke against this? Where was everyone?
Can't wait to see Herrod and Sumsion on Glenn Beck, dressed up in Midevil Garb

Interesting timing since the Federal Government is eying even land for possible National Monument status. The state of Utah has close to 3,000,000 people, and yet geographically it's one of the larger states within the Union, and some want to complain that just because only 30 percent of the land is private? Utah has some of the most scenic and geographically significant landscapes within the US, that is why most of that land is worth protecting. The political winds shift at the state level, and States, especially more "rouge" rural states (ran by modern day wana-be cowboys) do not always have the best land management practices in mind, thus they are more apt to sell off mining and mineral rights to wealthy constituents and political donors, not necessarily in the best interest of the general public, within and outside of the State.

"congress shall have power..To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Milkes square), as my, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful Buildings." U.S. Constitution, article 1, section 8.

No other authority for permanently held federal lands is found within the US Constitution. The 10th Amendment reinforces the intent that unless a power was specifically granted to the federal government it was withheld from them and retained by the states and the people.