Comments about ‘Utah lawmakers flex muscle in federal lands fight’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, Feb. 27 2013 5:40 p.m. MST

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Lindon, UT

And the liberal Dems think that more and bigger govt is better?

Poplar Grove, UT

But you think Utah can? The same politicians who want to build a nuclear power plant, in a desert, and take 1000's and 1000's of gallons of water(which we will need,to ya know, drink)out of our biggest water source. The same politicians that expect US to pay for it. If the state really got control of our land it would be strip mined and filled with toxic chemicals within the next 10 years.

county mom
Monroe, UT

The federal government should not and can not legally own water rights in the state of Utah. Utah can actually own water rights here.
The reason being, protection for us from being closed off from our water.
Water rights are very clear in Utah. Even if you own the land you do not own the water that lands on it or runs through it.
It is more then ranchers that suffer from federal water right grabs.
I hope you all like to drink a little water each day. Every drop of water we use all year long comes from our mountains, off of federal lands.
If they can take one persons water they can take it all and literally leave us high and dry!
As far as the existing powerplant is concerned the farmers from Delta hired a lawyer to claim every dry gultch and seasonal spring all along the Sevier River drainage, then they sold their water to the IPP.
Nuclear Power plants need heavy water and that is an entire other kettle of "water".

William Gronberg
Payson, UT

Was NOT the State of Utah closing state parks due to lack of money a year or two ago??


Darn skippy! I would have thought UT State controlled this already.

Taylorsville, UT

We have to remember that federal lands are not the property of Utah. What this vagabond state government is doing is selling out the people of America.

This passion for control is still confusing and we can be assured its not for the benefit of the citizens and people of Utah. BLM and federal control is the only thing stopping bill boards, smoke stacks, dust, oil spills, pollution, wild fires, deforesting and depopulating Utah of its wildlife.

Lining the pockets of the politicians and developers with billions of dollars are not my idea of good management of state property. We have lost Oquirrh hills and public canyons to development is a prime example of the future if Utah is allowed to sell it. NO hunting, no sports, no rafting, no boating, fishing, and no off road use.

Utah government doesn't want the land for recreational or public use. Its an asset to sell until the land runs out. Its not about what the BLM doesn't do with it, its about what Utah wants to do in destroying it as public property.

Red Smith
American Fork, UT

Like the Federal government is taking water from ranchers, today SLC is taking water from 30 companies in the valley with SB 109.

SB 109 (SLC's water bill) in House seeks to take up to $180 million of contract water from 30 water companies in Salt Lake County without just compensation.

SLC sued Big Ditch to take their water without just compensation. SLC lost in the the Utah Supreme Court. Last year, SLC ran HB 485. This year it's SB 109 to overturn their Supreme Court loss. SLC hired republican lobbyists,legislators to sponsor the SLC water bill, got the State Engineer to co-sponsor their bill,got the CUP to promote the bill, got the Water Task Force to write the SLC bill, offered special treatment to cities in the bill, gopt Utah's water cartel to support the bill, and offered new powers to the State Engineer to cut water transfers(a judicial power.

SLC owns over $1 Billion of the State's water, but only beneficially needs $150 million worth. SLC nor the Federal government does not need the water their grabbing.

Why do the big and powerful keep taking the small guys property without paying for it?

Springville, UT

What a fool's errand. They've worked themselves into such a frenzy that they've forgotten that they have no army. They spit in the face of a united country except when they have their hands out for money or other personal convenience. And like Mr. Gronberg points out, they struggle to manage what they already have. This will go nowhere.

Ogden, UT

Thomas Jefferson, panamadesnews, mikesmullin,

Where will Utah get the millions of dollars annually it takes to manage these lands? Because these are currently federal lands, the entire nation of 300 million is subsidizing their oversight. If Utah gains control, those expenses will have to be paid by the 3 million Utah residents. Where will the money come from? We can't even afford to keep our state parks open. Fighting forest fires is extremely expensive. Maintaining dirt roads and trails, developing resource management plans, etc is expensive. Where will the money come from? User fees for every hunter, ATV rider, and hiker? Selling off the resources to the highest bidder?

CHS 85
Sandy, UT

So Deseret News, where is the story in your newspaper about the state Senate vote on Tuesday night whether to reject or accept the federal government's $71 million dollars for environmental programs? The Democrats on the committee voted to reject the funds along with most of the Republicans. Guess which group changed their vote to accept those funds - that's right, the Republicans.

When the time to stand up and be counted as Mike Noel from Kanab says, the Republicans said yes to accepting federal money to manage lands in the state. How can a group of people have their hand out to accept money while talking smack at the same time?

Did I miss it? It was in the other newspaper.

Ernest T. Bass
Bountiful, UT

Say goodbye to freedom.

South Jordan, UT

I see nothing wrong with managing the land within our borders and believing that since we are more apt to understand the local situation that we can do a better job. I also see nothing wrong with accepting money to manage that land (because technically it isn't the states land) to manage that land (that would only seem normal, a management contract if you will). I especially think it's the obvious choice if we assume that the state can do it better and cheaper than the Federal Government. The paranoid people commenting on here about destroying all our public lands and strip mining the state are ridiculous. It would still be federal land. That means that the Federal government would have some say in how the land is managed. That means that unless the federal government wants the public lands violated then it won't happen.

Ogden, UT

We need to read between the lines here. This is just a few people trying to grab some FREE assets that they can sell for billions in profit, at the expense of the rest of us. They are trying to put lipstick on a pig and convince all of us that it is really Miss America. I hope that Utahns are smart enough to see through this.

one old man
Ogden, UT

Let's see, what percentage of our Utah legislators are realtors, land developers or other folks who stand to gain personal financial benefits from their schemes to take over Utah's public lands?

A few years ago it was about 80%. What is it now? Does anyone know?

But then, conflict of interest seems to be one of those elusive "Utah Values" we keep hearing about.


United States Congressional Record, March 17, 1993 Vol. 33, page H-1303
Speaker-Rep. James Traficant, Jr. (Ohio) addressing the House:

"It is an established fact that the United States Federal Government has been dissolved by the Emergency Banking Act, March 9, 1933, 48 Stat. 1, Public Law 89-719; declared by President Roosevelt, being bankrupt and insolvent. H.J.R. 192, 73rd Congress m session June 5, 1933 - Joint Resolution To Suspend The Gold Standard and Abrogate The Gold Clause dissolved the Sovereign Authority of the United States and the official capacities of all United States Governmental Offices, Officers, and Departments and is further evidence that the United States Federal Government exists today in name only."

With the Constitutional Republican form of Government now dissolved, the receivers of the Bankruptcy have adopted a new form of government for the United States. This new form of government is known as a Democracy, being an established Socialist/Communist order under a new governor for America.

The Lord has instructed us, in the Declaration of Indepencence on what we need to do when we find our selves connected with another government. (continued)


Mugabe, this has nothing to do with the (L)ord. You are correct that we now live in a democracy. This democracy has served us well for over 70 years. If problems now exist it is with those elceted to govern under the system not the system itself.

Tuffy Parker
Salem, UT

Given the choice of knuckleheads in Utah managing Utah or knuckleheads in Washington D.C. managing Utah, I'll take the home-grown sort every time...l

Cottonwood Heights, UT

Devolving control and management of these lands to the states, counties makes sense. The experience we have in federal land management has proven over and over that management is best handled by smaller government entities. They can be held to account by local residents who are the most threatened by poor planning and management practices. Why send land management funding to the federal government to get a reduced portion of it back? Funding that comes with many restrictions on how it can be used locally. Why continue to bankrupt Utah's economy and shortchange state education through non-use of the resources of the state? Payment in Lieu of Taxes is inadequate and always will be.

Olympia, WA

As a citizen with skin in the game, I hope Utah is not selfish enough to land grab property that I own in common with citizens all across the other 49 states. I don't want to have game hunting ranch as the only hunting options. As for fires, let them burn in the back country and you have the natural cycle. It is needed, and makes the forest healthy, dynamic, diversified. The shingle fire? 12.5 sq miles. Not much of a fire. Yellowstone is so much better for wildlife since the fire 20+ years ago.

Cottonwood Heights, UT

Bullet56, are you implying that the we who have a different point of view don't have skin in the game? The massive fires that have occurred since the early 1990's have burned so ferociously that even plants that require fire to germinate can't survive. The damage to wildlife species and human species is often disastrous. I used to agree to letting the back country burn until wild-lands fires became so intense that they roar across millions of acres and then encroach on inhabited areas. When you have the overcrowded, stress weakened conditions we find in federally managed forests today fire is uncontrollable and incredibly destructive.

I believe states have managed state parks and Endangered Species Conservation areas quite effectively for years. It is absolutely amazing how well rural lands can be managed for multiple use by state and county agencies.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments