Legal Scholars Challenge Utah's Public Lands Campaign

University of Utah legal scholars have released a white paper challenging the legal basis of Utah's demand for federal land transfer. The paper argues that such demands are legally untenable and could hinder efforts to resolve public land management conflicts.

University of Utah legal scholars released a white paper Wednesday concluding the state has no legal basis to demand the federal government turn over title topublic lands. Some state lawmakers have clamored for the state to sue after passing a law in 2012 demanding the feds give the state 30 million acres by Dec. 31.

Suing would not only be a waste of money, but also set back efforts to resolve conflicts over public land management, according to John Ruple, a research fellow with the U. law school’s Wallace Stegner Center for Land, Resources and the Environment.

"It takes time and energy from other efforts that could lead to success on these efforts, such as the [Congressman Rob] Bishop process and land exchanges," Ruple said. "There are ways we can create a win-win. This isn’t one of them."

But the state’s legal point man onpublic lands, Assistant Attorney General Anthony Rampton, contends the U. scholars are hardly raising any arguments. State lawyers have examined arguments raised by Keiter and Ruple.

The Stegner scholars have been watching the public land transfer movement build steam, with proposals surfacing in other state legislatures and spin-offlegislationgetting enacted in Utah.

He cautioned that the analysis doesn’t explore whether the state could manage thepublic landsbetter.

But environmental groups cited the Stegner scholars’ findings in calling on Utah leaders to rethink their obsession with land transfer, which they say could lead to a fiscal train wreck if the state doesn’t sell the land to cover the cost of managing it.

Led by Rep. Ken Ivory, R-West Jordan, many state officials have long argued the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management are mismanaging their holdings to the detriment of both rural communities and the environment.

Ivory, who did not immediately return an e-mail request for comment, has argued that the federal government has reneged on a "promise" to Western states to sell public land within their borders.

But, citing the U.S. Supreme Court, Ruple says the Constitution’s Property Clause clearly "grantsCongressan ‘absolute right’ to decide upon the disposition of federal land and ‘[n]o Statelegislationcan interfere with this right or embarrass its exercise.’"

Moreover, he noted, the Utah Enabling Act, which led to statehood in 1896, required residents of the new state to "forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriatedpublic landslying within the boundaries."

Rampton believes a careful reading of various states’ enabling acts contain provisions that support the notion that the federal government would give up lands.

Originally Posted By Salt Lake Tribune