Date post: | 15-Apr-2017 |
Category: |
Law |
Upload: | the-ocean-foundation |
View: | 204 times |
Download: | 0 times |
The Public Lands Debate in UtahKey Issues Involving the Transfer of Public Lands Act
Aisatou Diallo, Jaime Sigarán, and Federico Venco | Vermont Law School
Table of Contents I. Intro to Public Lands in Utah
Legal & Political HummusEnabling Act of 1894 | Transfer of Public Lands Act of 2012
Current Legal Framework Hawaii v. Hawaii Office of Hawaiian Affairs
II. Public Lands Management The Law of Fire
Wildlands User Interface (WUI) State vs. Federal Inconsistencies The Value of Public Lands
Opportunity: Uintah Basin Project III. Politics in the Wild Wild West
Social Welfare and Economics A Look into School Institutional Trust Lands (SITL)Deadline: December 31st, 2014
Conclusion and Future Study
Legal History
1780 – The Resolution of Congress on Public
Lands
1828 – Graduate Price of Public Lands • American Ins. Co. v.
Bales of Cotton1896 – Utah’s Enabling
Act 1960 – Wilderness Act
1976 – Federal Public Lands Management Act • National Forest
Management Act
2009 – Hawaii v. Office of
Hawaiian Affairs
Legal and Political Hummus Federal government maintained two primary goals:
1. Aimed to create new states; and2. Directed to pay debts - EX. The Revolutionary War
The binding value in the Resolution on Public Lands prevented state legislatures from interring with Congress’ primary disposal of public lands
Contrast: The Northwest Ordinance and American Ins. Co. v. 356 Bales of Cotton
Equal footing doctrine upheld in Pollard v. Haggan that:“the United States shall have fully executed these trusts, the municipal sovereignty of the new states will be complete, throughout their respective borders, and they, and the original states, will be upon an equal footing, in all respects." Later expanded upon in State of Texas v. White
Utah’s Enabling Act & TPLAUtah’s Enabling Act 28 Stat. 107 § 3 (1894). [The People of Utah] agree that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying
within the boundaries thereof; 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 Enabling Act of 1896 stipulates Utah disclaimed title to its public lands in favor of the United States until the United States disposed of the lands
Transfer of Public Lands Act. Utah Code Annotated § 63L-6-101-63L-6-104.On or before December 31, 2014, the United States shall: (a) extinguish title to public lands; and (b) transfer title to public lands to the state. (2) If the state transfers title to any public lands with respect to which the state receives
title under Subsection (1)(b), the state shall: (a) retain 5% of the net proceeds the state receives from the transfer of title; and (b) pay 95% of the net proceeds the state receives from the transfer of title to the United States. (3) In accordance with Utah Constitution Article X, Section 5, the amounts the state retains in accordance with Subsection (2)(a) shall be deposited into the permanent State School Fund.
Current Legal Framework Hawaii v. Hawaii Office of Hawaiian Affairs 2009 decision made by SCOTUS held Congress had no right to change the promises
made to the State’s Enabling Act. “together with the proceeds from the sale or other disposition of [these] lands and the income
therefrom, shall be held by [the] State as a public trust” to promote various public purposes.” – Justice Samuel Alito
The Hawaiian case can be distinguished from Utah's case. Hawaiian Admission Act expressly grants the land owned by the US to the new born State of
Hawaii and therefore the Apology Resolution would be unconstitutional if interpreted in the sense of denying such grant.
The difference here is that Utah's Enabling Act does not explicitly grant any land to the State, it just (and according with one of the possible interpretations) says that Congress will extinguish the title at a later unspecified time
Prior to the Hawaii case there was Idaho v. United States (2001) Taken together American jurisprudence (the courts) emphasize that 'Congress cannot, after
statehood, reserve or convey submerged lands that have already been bestowed upon a State'
The Law of FireFederal and State Wildfire Management In 2011, the United States Forest Service spent approximately $18 million on wildfire
suppression spending in Utah That budget increased nearly threefold in 2012 reaching $58 million
The Department of Natural Resources of Utah in 2011 budgeted $3 million for the upcoming fiscal year
The following fiscal year of 2012 total costs of suppressing wild fires cost upwards $16 millionTying Resource Protection to Community Resiliency
a) Clean Water Act permits states to assert their authority over water in effort to “prevent, reduce, and eliminate pollution in concert with [federal] programs for managing water resources
b) Similarly, the Clean Air Act prescribes Utah to protect watershed projects from smoke and wildfiresThe main problem here is that state and federal approaches to developing the Wildlands User Interface (WUI) are inadequate or lack a coherent form. According to a study conducted by Headwater Economics, development away from the WUI
must be incentivized
Wildlands User Interface
Despite that only 7 percent of the WUI is already developed in the state, wildfires are increasingly becoming more pronounced and unpredictable through climate change
Value of Public Lands
Social
•Recreation•Aesthetic •Wellness Politi
cal
•Conservative Environmentalist v. Radical Environmentalist•Bureaucratic Process•Interagency Coordination•USFS, BLM, and DNREcon
omic
•Resource Commercialization•Human Development•Energy
Uintah Basin Project Applying TPLA According to edcUTAH there are 550 million barrels of oil viable for natural gas and oil extraction
Sutherland Institute Center for Self-Government, Dr. Timothy Considine estimated “the state economy could add…$1.2 billion and $6.7 billion and 9,400 to 58,000 jobs annually by developing oil, gas, and renewable energy on federal lands within the state
Challenges include: a) Need for transportation infrastructure b) Resolve land ownership issues
Where do we go from here?The silver lining is that understanding the full context and implication of TPLA in relation to fossil fuels and renewable energy development on public lands is still unclear TPLA in theory could require an admixture of energy needs including oil and gas development
However, Haggerty, Gude, Delory, & Rasker (2011) note socioeconomic variables associated with oil and gas development lead to negative effects in per capita income, crime rate, and education attainment.
Social Welfare and Economics
School Institutional Trust Lands Administration
Politics in the Wild Wild West A look into SITL Utah’s education is at an extreme low, only spending less than $8,000 on per pupil
funding! More public land would benefit the state to add more school funding because they
would be able to increase tax revenue and provide that to schools Utah Congressman Rob Bishop acknowledges how the state can begin to fund education with
more public land and sets out to educate people on his plan to restore education in UtahAn underlying issue is that the state receives money from the federal government via Payment-in-Lieu-of-Taxes (PILT)
With the lack of private and state land, comes the lack of tax revenueThe Environmental Divide: Some environmentalist feel that the land should be left untouched
Another perspective: Utah should move forward with TPLA because the federal government mismanages public land resources at the expense of local communities and local concerns
Future Study: Mid-term Elections
District 1: Robert Bishop won 64.2% of the vote. Emerged victorious over McAleer “Don’t let Rob Bishop and Republican legislators take it away from our children”District 2: Chris Stewart captured 60.4% of constituents. Secured a victory over State Sen. Luz Robles “I’m very much in the middle. I focus on issues of veterans, immigration and education that are pertinent to all Americans.”District 3: Jason Chaffetz delivered 72.3% of the constituency. Defeated Brian Wondacott “[w]e will definitely be using it all up and even though there are efforts to get more with fracking and stuff like that and all that means is that we will use more oil faster.”District 4: Mia Love garnered 50% of the votes. Pulled a win against Doug Owens “[W]e can be good stewards here in Utah, absolutely. I favor the stake holder driven process, not driven from Washington, driven from here.
1
2
3
4
Thank You!
Acknowledgements: Headwater Economics, Sutherland Institute, Desert News, UtahPolicy.com,