federal lands debate

Okay, I have a challenge for all the constitutional/legal minds that care to weigh in on this topic.



Utah, like other western states, is forced to deal with the fact that the federal government owns and controls nearly 70% of the land within the state. Over 77 land leases have been revoked by the federal government which were primarily used for oil. The trillions of dollars worth of coal under grand staircase was declared off limits by Bill Clinton. Mining for uranium near the grand canyon has been stopped. A reduction in the area where oil sand and oil shale may be mined is in the works, etc.



In response Utah has passed into state law bills that would allow federally held lands to be taken by eminent domain in order to lay groundwork for damages in a law suit against the federal government to force them to live up to their contractual agreement in Utah's enabling act.



Is such an action by a state constitutional or not? Please support your answer with why you believe your opinion is correct.

I really think the only thing in the Constitution on point here (dealing with ownership of property) is the takings clause. Utah would have to demonstrate that the taking was for a public use, and just compensation would have to be paid. The courts have diluted the public use requirement down to nothing (wan't to build a Wal-Mart but no one will sell? Eminent domain baby!), but the first big barrier to Utah taking would be the "just compensation." Once Utah pays compensation for land they admit they think is highly prospective for carbons or uranium, the price rockets up. Utah would probably find that the "just compensation" would make this idea far less economical than what a couple of feel good Congressmen imagined up. They'd be taking more than just the dirt--they are taking the reserves, and they'd have to compensate for that too.



From a naked economic perspective, eminent domain to get to energy sources sounds great, but the profitability of that concept in motion is dubious. If the State is going to lose money on it, they probably won't do it. It also sets a disturbing precedent--what happens to the private landowner who doesn't want to lease the hunting property that's been in his family for generations to the oil companies? Does the state cite the same public policy and come in and take his land? What's frightening about that is that they don't need to pass any laws to assert that authority.



As for pure "can they do it?" right or wrong I don't think the courts will let it happen. You can't sue the federal government unless the government has somehow, someway given you permission to sue it. Even if Utah is just doing this to try and get to the enabling act as the vehicle for a suit, federal courts interpret waivers of sovereign immunity very narrowly, and the back-door approach Utah is taking to get to that point will probably make any suit DOA in the courts.

All valid points, just as I would expect from you Sno, and I think you do get to the heart of it by recognizing that the courts will not be motivated to engage the question. There is just a lot for the courts to choke on. However, if the stars align by God's graces, the rightness of the cause may find a way.



That is really the reason I threw out the question, to gauge the opinion of people as to the constitutional rightness of the cause.

The figure I've heard for our state is 63% federal. That being the case why do we have the shape we do on the maps, it should look like a piece of Swiss cheese. I don't have any law knowledge, I just feel the federal government has grown to the point that states rights hardly matter any more. When they put the wolves in here it wasn't because anybody I knew had any desire for them, it was because somebody outside our area and a few move ins thought they were wonderful little puppies.



I'm no longer sure the South was wrong.

The South was dead wrong on the matter of slavery.



That being said, there's no reason that the federal government should own 60+% of the land in Utah. Utah should pass a law requiring no entity to own any more than 10% of the state, and give anyone who does so 1 year to sell off their excess.

hawkwing wrote:
That being said, there's no reason that the federal government should own 60+% of the land in Utah. Utah should pass a law requiring no entity to own any more than 10% of the state, and give anyone who does so 1 year to sell off their excess.

You mean other than the fact that until Utah became a state the Federal government owned 100% of the non-private land in what is now Utah? Not to mention the fact that such a proposed law would be considered a taking just like eminent domain and would run into the same economic issues of just compensation.



Utah was a US Territory prior to statehood, which means the Federal Government held the land for the benefit of ALL US citizens...about 75,000,000 of them in 1896. If the Federal government were to grant all the land in the borders to the newfound state, it would be taking from about 74,725,000 other citizens and giving it to the state of Utah for the benefit of the about 275,000 people who lived there at the time. The only people that makes sense to are the people in Utah who come out big time winners. Do you also want to see the federal government give all the federal land in Alaska to the Alaskan people, including all the oil reserves?



The federal lands and the resources thereon/thereunder represent possibly the single greatest asset in the federal portfolio. If you start giving that away, kiss goodbye any semi-respectable credit rating as well as any shot at taking a bite out of the national deficit any time in the next twenty years.

I do not condone slavery and it was not my focus.



As far as credit rating goes it appears the lips to kiss it goodbye have either done their job or are inches away.

snoscythe wrote:

That being said, there's no reason that the federal government should own 60+% of the land in Utah. Utah should pass a law requiring no entity to own any more than 10% of the state, and give anyone who does so 1 year to sell off their excess.

You mean other than the fact that until Utah became a state the Federal government owned 100% of the non-private land in what is now Utah? Not to mention the fact that such a proposed law would be considered a taking just like eminent domain and would run into the same economic issues of just compensation.



Utah was a US Territory prior to statehood, which means the Federal Government held the land for the benefit of ALL US citizens...about 75,000,000 of them in 1896. If the Federal government were to grant all the land in the borders to the newfound state, it would be taking from about 74,725,000 other citizens and giving it to the state of Utah for the benefit of the about 275,000 people who lived there at the time. The only people that makes sense to are the people in Utah who come out big time winners. Do you also want to see the federal government give all the federal land in Alaska to the Alaskan people, including all the oil reserves?



The federal lands and the resources thereon/thereunder represent possibly the single greatest asset in the federal portfolio. If you start giving that away, kiss goodbye any semi-respectable credit rating as well as any shot at taking a bite out of the national deficit any time in the next twenty years.

Well, the federal government did it (sold the land) in every state east of Colorado. What changed? So, yes I think they should sell all federal lands that are not specifically used for federal purposes. By not doing so they are in breach of contract, are they not? The eleven or twelve western states are not receiving equal protection under the law as other states have received.



As far as the federal government receiving money, they could get a lot more than they are getting now simply because they have been in the process of shutting down oil leases and not allowing new ones. Clearly, the intent has not been for the federal government to use oil leases as a means to pay off the national debt.