Utah poised to lead another Sagebrush Rebellion over federal land

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Bill Vernal, UT
    March 5, 2012 10:35 p.m.

    "The large disparity between federal owned land in the east and the west". The east is green and the west is mostly arid, Duh! My guess is at statehood these were the lands deemed useless and folks could not have cared less what happened to them. I have heard that in reporting back to Brigham Young a scout sent to assess the suitability of the Uintah Basin found that it's only redeeming quality was in "holding the world together".

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    March 5, 2012 3:37 p.m.

    The only people pushing for this are DEVELOPERS.

    If it's not endless housing tracks, urban sprawl or tackless Billboards, it's Nuclear waste dumps.

    I'm glad the Feds are protecting us from our own selfish, greedy businessmen and developers!

  • lket Bluffdale, UT
    March 5, 2012 1:20 p.m.

    is utah a sovereign. i thought a country is. or are they going to try a confederacy. oh wait we did that in this country and a republican put a stop to it and the federal goverment grew and the united state goverment says the same. they are different things by the way. one you vote for the other is appointed without voter control. it wasnt over slavery as much as rights. but the president was smart and proclaimed freedom and got the right kind of people to fight for him with ideals and morals and the north started winning. remeber the north was industry and railroads and the south was most agriculture. most southern people were poor and did not own slaves. they fought for the states. the rich north industry got what they wanted control of more of the money. as now the republicans are for the rich but now fight for states rights so more money can be made.

  • CHS 85 Sandy, UT
    March 5, 2012 12:59 p.m.

    @ute alumni

    So what differentiates what they can take by eminent domain and what they can't? Is the governor going to march into the federal building in downtown Salt Lake and demand it be given to the state of Utah so it can be sold. After all, a commercial business would generate more money for the state it's use as a government office building. What about the federal courthouse, the IRS building in Ogden? Surely that land is more valuable than just government offices.

    Why is it that only DoD facilities are exempt from this grandstanding? Why not carve up Hill AFB and let private tax-paying companies use the land to generate income?

  • ute alumni Tengoku, UT
    March 5, 2012 12:31 p.m.

    Happy Valley Heretic,
    Let me help you with a big concept. Let's just use 70% and not size. You might try reading the article and understand it is about the percentage of the state ownership, not the state size. The feds already cut the original size of the state by more than a half. For those of you that want to be directed from the feds, good luck to your nanny state. There are a lot of us that are fed up with them running everything and that they continue to overstep there authority.

  • UADJ American Fork, UT
    March 5, 2012 11:18 a.m.

    After 116 years, it is time for the federal government to keep its promise. I trust Utahns to make the best decisions for the Utah lands they rely on for their sustainable economic viability, funding education, recreation, hunting, and tourism dollars.

    Money spent in defense of rights is money well spent.

  • DeltaFoxtrot West Valley, UT
    March 5, 2012 10:48 a.m.

    More millions wasted.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    March 5, 2012 10:44 a.m.

    to ute alumni:
    and Rhode Island is so small and Texas so big it's just not fair is it?
    Perhaps you could draw up new borders that would make all the states equal size, huh?
    We are not Europe, We are the United States of America, United being the key word here.
    I believe the Utah legislature and local authorities would make short use of our (America's) inheritance.
    They prove it every year with their nonsensical bills.

  • lex loci Cottonwood Heights, UT
    March 5, 2012 9:42 a.m.

    I think the issue is who is the sovereign. The state is the sovereign and the Federal Government is the private property holder. I would think that with a compelling state interest for public use - funding public education - the state could use the ratios of Kelo, Hawaiian Housing Authority, Midkiff and Berman to show that (1) state legislatures should be granted a high degree of deference in making decisions of what constitutes public use including potentially higher tax reveues, and (2) there is nothing unconstitutional about using eminent domain to transfer property to another private property holder.

    With the issue properly framed, I would think the state could win this argument, in theory. In reality, though, I would not expect the federal government to be treated as a private citizen.

  • CWEB Orem, UT
    March 5, 2012 9:17 a.m.

    So, if it has little chance of working, why is our State Gov throwing away 3 million dollars? Seems that could be used to actually do some good in our state! Another example of poor leadership in our State Gov.

  • ute alumni Tengoku, UT
    March 5, 2012 7:51 a.m.

    for those that think the feds should own 70% of utah i ask why? It is only in the west that the percentage is so high. it is all about power. glad there are so many that are willing to beg from the feds. I for one don't want to beg and am in favor of getting it back in the people's hands.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    March 5, 2012 7:08 a.m.

    If we weren't so hard up financially, this would make more sense than it does. We could afford all the money this would cost to make a statement. Come on lawmakers, there is so much we can't afford, that we ought to be spending money on.

    When I went to university years ago, I lived at home but could afford during 1 summers work to pay tuition and books for that year. In order to save the state money, tuition was raised and this is no longer possible.

    Before we do silly things such as this 'sage brush rebellion', shouldn't we restore funding to higher education? Restore the retirement benefits we have taken from state workers? (no I am not a state worker nor is any if my immediate or extended family).

    When there are so many important things we could fund but aren't, why are we talking about funding this?

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    March 5, 2012 6:53 a.m.

    This is a fools errand. Even when Reagan, Bush I and Bush II were in office, the transfer of land did not happen. It will not happen now. Why would the federal government give the land to the state of Utah? And for 5%, Utah will turn these lands over to private interests, to be lost forever for the public good? Talk about selling your birthright for a bowl of pottage. These lands get sold off, and those who enjoy using those lands for hiking, hunting, fishing, camping, etc. will see many "no trespassing" signs like we see all over the East. And Utah will find it to be a financial burden, having to manage those lands which are not sold off and losing payments in lieu of taxes that are now received by the state. Folks, the underlying motivation for this is two things: 1. An irrational obsession about the federal government, and 2. special interests who want to exploit those lands for their own financial gain. The losers: The people of Utah. Don't fall for this nonsense and lose the quality of life that Utah has and most states outside the West do not and cannot have. These public lands are a big part of what makes Utah special.

  • bodgerdlue Kearns, UT
    March 5, 2012 6:05 a.m.

    Can someone please show me where this "promise to sell federal lands" is located. Because according to the Utah State Constitution, Section 3:

    "The people inhabiting this State do affirm and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within the boundaries hereof, and to all lands lying within said limits owned or held by any Indian or Indian tribes, and that until the title thereto shall have been extinguished by the United States, the same shall be and remain subject to the disposition of the United States, and said Indian lands shall remain under the absolute jurisdiction and control of the Congress of the United States."

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    March 4, 2012 8:24 p.m.

    Utah's environmental motto: "Multiply, multiply and pillage the earth."

    Land is worth nothing if it's pumping dollars into somebody's pocket. Unfortunately, it won't be a common working person's pocket.

  • DN Subscriber Cottonwood Heights, UT
    March 4, 2012 7:08 p.m.


    This is not unprecedented, nor more risky than what other bold leaders have done in the past, such as on July 4, 1776.

    "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."