DOCSLIB.ORG

Public Lands in the West

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Public Lands in the West PUBLIC LANDS Public Lands in the West By Hans Poschman Western states are unique in that the federal government owns and manages large portions of the land in every state in the region. The federal government is responsible for managing between 635 million and 640 million acres of land in the United States;1 roughly 592 million of those acres are located in the West. 2 The federal government controls 62 percent of the land in Alaska and 47 percent of the land in the 11 mainland Western states. For comparison, the federal government controls only 4 percent of the land in the remaining 38 states. History of Public Lands Federal ownership of large tracts of land goes legislation creating the Public Land Law Review back to the founding of the United States. As part Commission, which was tasked with reviewing of the formation of the nation, the original 13 colo - public land policy in the U.S. The commission nies turned over the lands west of the Appalachian recommended revision of statutes regarding the Mountains and east of the Mississippi River to the large-scale disposal of public lands and, “future federal government. 3 The federal government then disposal should be only those lands that will used that land to form new states and encourage achieve maximum benefit for the general public settlement and development, while reserving some in non-Federal ownership, while retaining in land for public use. Efforts to encourage settlement Federal ownership those whose values must be of the West continued to increase as lands were preserved so that they may be used and enjoyed used to pay debt and pay soldiers. In the early 1800s, by all Americans.” 5 Congress debated the results federal control of land increased rapidly after the of the commission’s report for three terms before Louisiana Purchase, the Oregon Treaty with England passing the Federal Land Policy and Management and the U.S.-Mexican War led to Mexico turning Act of 1976, which stated the federal government over land to the U.S. should retain ownership of federal lands unless, “it Congress further encouraged westward expan - is determined that disposal of a particular parcel sion and settlement with a series of laws aimed will serve the national interest.” 6 Additionally, the at disposing of federal lands in return for people act required the federal government to receive the moving west. Between 1781 and 1940, the federal full market value for those lands if it disposed of government transferred nearly 800 million acres lands in the future. to private ownership. During the same period, the federal government granted 328 million acres to Legal Basis for the states and 142 million in Alaska under state Federal Land Ownership and Native selection laws. 4 In 1812, the General The framers of the Constitution enshrined the Land Office was established as part of the Treasury right of Congress to use, as it sees fit, the property Department to oversee the disposal of federal lands. owned by the federal government through The A shift in how the federal government treated Property Clause, Article IV, § 3, Clause 2. It reads: public lands began in the 1930s. In 1934, Congress “The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and passed the Taylor Grazing Act and created the U.S. make all needful Rules and Regulations respect- Grazing Service to manage grazing on public lands. ing the Territory or other Property belonging to While the act indicated grazing was to last until the United States.” In Kleppe v. New Mexico , the Congress had disposed of the lands, it was a clear Supreme Court ruled the property clause permits shift in the treatment of public lands. This was the Congress to exercise complete power over public first time the federal government had authorized property entrusted to it. 7 Additionally, the court direct management of lands that previously were stated, “Congress … retains the power to enact leg- freely available for transient grazing. islation respecting those (federal) lands pursuant In 1946, the General Land Office and the U.S. to the Property Clause. … And when Congress so Grazing Service were merged to form the Bureau acts, the federal legislation necessarily overrides of Land Management. In 1964, Congress passed conflicting state laws under the Supremacy Clause.” 8 The Council of State Governments 459 PUBLIC LANDS Figure A: Federal Land as a Percentage of Total State Land Area WA 30.3 1.1 MT 2.7 29.9 5.6 OR 7.5 53.1 5.6 ID 6.2 0.8 13.4 10.0 50.2 1.9 WY 0.4 42.3 0.4 0.8 2.5 1.4 NV 1.7 3.1 84.5 1.8 2.0 2.0 CA UT 7.4 57.4 9.9 45.3 CO 5.0 2.8 36.6 1.2 5.4 11.8 3.6 3.2 AZ 7.2 2.9 48.1 NM 41.8 3.8 7.3 1.6 1.9 5.1 AK 69.1 8.2 HI 19.4 Source: U.S. General Services Administration, Federal Real Property Profile 2004 . Note: Map excludes trust properties. Some schematic sizes are slightly larger than actual size, for illustrative purposes. Sagebrush Rebellion The passage of the Federal Land Policy and Man- passed similar legislation. In 1978, the State of agement Act in 1976 extinguished the hope of many Nevada sued the federal government over the Westerners that the large tracts of federal land in constitutionality of the federal land retention policy their states eventually would be turned over to the in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act. states. Many refused to give up, however, and sparked Additionally, Nevada argued the federal govern - the Sagebrush Rebellion, a series of skirmishes, ment held “public lands in trust temporarily, for the including legal challenges and outright violence purpose of disposal to the State and its citizens.” intended to force the federal government to divest The federal district court for the District of Nevada itself of public lands. The incidents escalated to vio - dismissed the case, finding the constitution “entrusts lence when a bomb was detonated at a U.S. Forest Congress with power over the public land without Service office in April 1995. The threats rose to a limitations; it is not for the courts to say how that level where Bureau of Land Management em- trust shall be administered, but for Congress to ployees were encouraged to travel in pairs. Efforts determine.” to force the federal government to turn over its In 1982, President Ronald Reagan signed an public lands to the states—including lawsuits, state executive order titled “Federal Real Property,” and federal legislation—continue. which created a board to review federal property Among state efforts was a Nevada state law available for disposal. The Reagan administration enacted in 1979 that asserted state title, manage - changed how property should be disposed of, ment and disposal authority over public BLM lands moving from the free transfer of land to selling within Nevada’s boundaries. Arizona, Hawaii, Idaho, land at fair market value. The administration’s New Mexico, North Dakota, Utah and Wyoming all efforts stalled when Congress refused to authorize 460 The Book of the States 2014 PUBLIC LANDS Table A: Total State Acreage, Total Federal Acreage and Percentage of State Acreage Administered by the Federal Government Percentage of federal acreage in state, administered by the four federal land management agencies and the Dept. of Defense, 2010 Dept. of the Interior Total percentage Dept. of of state land Agriculture National Fish and Bureau of State or other Total acreage Total federal acreage that Forest Park Wildlife Land Dept. of jurisdiction in the state land acreage is federal Service Service Service Management Defense U.S. Total ................... 2,271,343,360 628,801,639 27.7% 31% 13% 14% 39% 3% Alabama .................... 32,678,400 871,232 2.7% 77% 2% 4% 0% 17% Alaska ........................ 365,481,600 225,848,164 61.8% 10% 23% 34% 32% 1% Arizona ...................... 72,688,000 30,741,287 42.3% 37% 9% 5% 40% 10% Arkansas .................... 33,599,360 3,161,978 9.4% 82% 3% 12% 0% 3% California .................. 100,206,720 47,797,533 47.7% 44% 16% 1% 32% 8% Colorado .................... 66,485,760 24,086,075 36.2% 60% 3% 1% 35% 2% Connecticut ............... 3,135,360 8,557 0.3% 0% 67% 14% 0% 19% Delaware ................... 1,265,920 28,574 2.3% 0% 0% 88% 0% 12% Florida ....................... 34,721,280 4,536,811 13.1% 26% 54% 6% 0% 14% Georgia ...................... 37,295,360 1,956,720 5.2% 44% 2% 25% 0% 29% Hawaii........................ 4,105,600 833,786 20.3% 0% 43% 36% 0% 21% Idaho .......................... 52,933,120 32,635,835 61.7% 63% 2% 0% 36% 0% Illinois ........................ 35,795,200 406,734 1.1% 73% 0% 22% 0% 5% Indiana ....................... 23,158,400 340,696 1.5% 60% 3% 4% 0% 33% Iowa ........................... 35,860,480 122,602 0.3% 0% 2% 58% 0% 40% Kansas ....................... 52,510,720 301,157 0.6% 36% 0% 10% 0% 54% Kentucky ................... 25,512,320 1,083,104 4.2% 75% 9% 1% 0% 15% Louisiana ................... 28,867,840 1,330,429 4.6% 45% 1% 42% 1% 10% Maine ......................... 19,847,680 209,735 1.1% 26% 32% 31% 0% 11% Maryland ................... 6,319,360 195,986 3.1% 0% 21% 24% 0% 55% Massachusetts ........... 5,034,880 81,692 1.6% 0% 40% 27% 0% 33% Michigan .................... 36,492,160 3,637,965 10.0% 79% 17% 3% 0% 0% Minnesota .................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Rr714 Sk.Indd
    Research Report Report Number 714, June 2013 Sagebrush Rebellion Part II Analysis of the public lands debate in utah HIGHLIGHTS The federal government owns around 635 million acres, 1 Nearly 67% of the land in Utah is owned by the or 28% of the land comprising the United States. Within federal government, the fourth highest among all 50 states. Utah, nearly 67% of the state’s total acreage, or 35 million The Legislature passed the Transfer of Public Lands Act (TPLA) in 2012, which demands the acres, is owned by the federal government. Throughout the federal government transfer nearly 20 million acres of land by 2015. nation’s history, groups have debated who should control Supporters of the TPLA argue that when Utah became a state, the federal government this land and how it should be managed. In 2012, the promised to “extinguish title” to all federal lands within a timely manner. Because it hasn’t, it has Utah State Legislature passed H.B. 148, which demands put the state at an economic disadvantage, has hurt education funding, and manages the land the United States transfer their title to public lands to the ineffi ciently. State of Utah before December 31, 2014. Opponents of the TPLA argue that Utah agreed to “forever disclaim” all public lands when it Th is research report will explain the history of public lands in the U.S. and Utah, past became a state. They posit that the state was brought into the union under equal footing, there eff orts to transfer the land to state control, the arguments for and against keeping the are economic benefi ts to federal control of the lands under federal ownership, and assess the merits and faults of each argument.
    [Show full text]
  • The Malheur Occupations and the Hyper-Masculine Drive for Control
    The Patriarch and the Sovereign: The Malheur Occupations and the Hyper-Masculine Drive for Control COURTNEY IRONS* On January 2, 2016, a group of armed protestors seized control of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. The occupation followed a long tradition of resistance in western states of federal land management policy, but the members took a stricter approach to federalism than most. The group fully rejected federal sovereignty over the land, and in doing so demonstrated a particularly gendered approach to power and government. The purpose of this Note is to explore how the occupier‟s understanding of federalism relates to theories on masculinity. Drawing on statements made during the course of the occupation, news reports, and testimony during the subsequent legal proceedings, this Note will argue the occupiers‟ patriarchal beliefs about masculinity influenced and informed their understanding of federalism with the belief that doing so may help us understand the growing nationalist and extremist views in conservative movements today. * Executive Notes Editor, Colum. J.L. & Soc. Probs., 2017–2018. J.D. Candidate 2018, Columbia Law School. The author would like to thank her advisor Professor Chris- tina Duffy Ponsa for her guidance and feedback, and the staff of the Columbia Journal of Law and Social Problems for all of their helpful comments and hard work. 480 Columbia Journal of Law and Social Problems [51:3 I. INTRODUCTION For forty days in 2016, a group of anti-government protesters occupied the Malheur Wildlife Refuge in Southeastern
    [Show full text]
  • Constitutional Authority and the History of Acquisition, Disposal, and Retention
    Order Code RL34267 Federal Land Ownership: Constitutional Authority and the History of Acquisition, Disposal, and Retention December 3, 2007 Kristina Alexander Legislative Attorney American Law Division Ross W. Gorte Specialist in Natural Resources Policy Resources, Science, and Industry Division Federal Land Ownership: Constitutional Authority and the History of Acquisition, Disposal, and Retention Summary Federal land ownership began when the original 13 states ceded their “western” lands (between the Appalachian Mountains and the Mississippi River) to the central government between 1781 and 1802. Substantial land acquisition in North America via treaties and purchases began with the Louisiana Purchase in 1803 and culminated with the purchase of Alaska in 1867. In total, the federal government acquired 1.8 billion acres in North America. The U.S. Constitution addresses the relationship of the federal government to lands. Article IV, § 3, Clause 2 — the Property Clause — gives Congress authority over federal property generally, and the Supreme Court has described Congress’s power to legislate under this Clause as “without limitation.” The equal footing doctrine (based on language within Article IV, § 3, Clause 1), and found in state enabling acts, provides new states with equality to the original states in terms of constitutional rights, but has not been used successfully to force the divestment of federal lands. The policy question of whether to acquire more, or to dispose of any or all, federal lands is left to Congress to decide. The initial federal policy generally was to transfer ownership of many federal lands to private and state ownership. Congress enacted many laws granting lands and authorizing or directing sales or transfers, ultimately disposing of 1.275 billion acres.
    [Show full text]
  • Regulating Non-Federal Property to Further the Purpose of National Parks and Wilderness Areas, 11 B.C
    Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review Volume 11 | Issue 3 Article 3 4-1-1984 The copS e of Congress’ Constitutional Power Under the Property Clause: Regulating Non- Federal Property to Further the Purpose of National Parks and Wilderness Areas Blake Shepard Follow this and additional works at: http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/ealr Part of the Environmental Law Commons Recommended Citation Blake Shepard, The Scope of Congress’ Constitutional Power Under the Property Clause: Regulating Non-Federal Property to Further the Purpose of National Parks and Wilderness Areas, 11 B.C. Envtl. Aff. L. Rev. 479 (1984), http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/ealr/vol11/iss3/3 This Comments is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE SCOPE OF CONGRESS' CONSTITUTIONAL POWER UNDER THE PROPERTY CLAUSE: REGULATING NON-FEDERAL PROPERTY TO FURTHER THE PURPOSES OF NATIONAL PARKS AND WILDERNESS AREAS Blake Shepard* I. INTRODUCTION The National Park System has been heralded as one of the "few unambiguous triumphs of American public policy."l It is com­ prised of roughly forty-five million acres of predominantly federally-owned land2 that has been removed from the public domain and reserved by Congress for a specific public use.3 The fundamental purpose of the national parks is "to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wildlife therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations."4 In recent years, however, the activities of private industries and individuals have threatened to prevent many national parks and other specially protected federal reserves5 from fulfilling their declared purposes.
    [Show full text]
  • Land Grabbers, Toadstool Worshippers, and the Sagebrush Rebellion in Utah, 1979-1981
    Brigham Young University BYU ScholarsArchive Theses and Dissertations 2005-07-15 Land Grabbers, Toadstool Worshippers, and the Sagebrush Rebellion in Utah, 1979-1981 Jedediah S. Rogers Brigham Young University - Provo Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd Part of the History Commons BYU ScholarsArchive Citation Rogers, Jedediah S., "Land Grabbers, Toadstool Worshippers, and the Sagebrush Rebellion in Utah, 1979-1981" (2005). Theses and Dissertations. 601. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd/601 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. LAND GRABBERS, TOADSTOOL WORSHIPPERS, AND THE SAGEBRUSH REBELLION IN UTAH, 1979–1981 by Jedediah S. Rogers A thesis submitted to the faculty of Brigham Young University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master’s of History Department of History Brigham Young University August 2005 Copyright © 2005 Jedediah S. Rogers All Rights Reserved BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY GRADUATE COMMITTEE APPROVAL of a thesis submitted by Jedediah S. Rogers This thesis has been read by each member of the following graduate committee and by majority vote has been found to be satisfactory. ___________________ ________________________________________ Date Thomas G. Alexander, Chair ___________________ ________________________________________
    [Show full text]
  • An Examination of Sagebrush Rebellion Communications Using Narrative Policy Framework
    UNLV Theses, Dissertations, Professional Papers, and Capstones May 2016 An Examination of Sagebrush Rebellion Communications Using Narrative Policy Framework Amber Overholser University of Nevada, Las Vegas Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/thesesdissertations Part of the History Commons, and the Public Policy Commons Repository Citation Overholser, Amber, "An Examination of Sagebrush Rebellion Communications Using Narrative Policy Framework" (2016). UNLV Theses, Dissertations, Professional Papers, and Capstones. 2718. http://dx.doi.org/10.34917/9112158 This Dissertation is protected by copyright and/or related rights. It has been brought to you by Digital Scholarship@UNLV with permission from the rights-holder(s). You are free to use this Dissertation in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you need to obtain permission from the rights-holder(s) directly, unless additional rights are indicated by a Creative Commons license in the record and/or on the work itself. This Dissertation has been accepted for inclusion in UNLV Theses, Dissertations, Professional Papers, and Capstones by an authorized administrator of Digital Scholarship@UNLV. For more information, please contact [email protected]. AN EXAMINATION OF SAGEBRUSH REBELLION COMMUNICATIONS USING NARRATIVE POLICY FRAMEWORK By Amber Overholser Bachelor of Arts - Integrative and Professional Studies Great Basin College 2004 Master of Science - Administration Central
    [Show full text]
  • Public Lands Federalism: Judicial Theory and Administrative Reality*
    Public Lands Federalism: Judicial Theory and Administrative Reality* Richard H. Cowart** Sally K. Fairfax*** TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ................................................... 377 I. Context and History of the Sagebrush Rebellion ........... 383 A. The Antecedents to the Ranchers' Revolt ............. 385 1. The Post-World War I Grazing Fee Controversy... 386 2. The Taylor Grazing Act .......................... 388 3. The 1940's Grazing Fee Controversy and the "Great Land Grab" .... .......................... 390 B. The Ranchers' Revolt, 1970's Style .................... 392 C. The Sagebrush Rebellion Writ Large .................. 395 1. The Philosophical Factors ......................... 396 2. The Federal Bulldozer: The Energy Crisis and the M X M issile ....................................... 401 3. State Resource and Environmental Management Program s ......................................... 405 D . Sum m ary ............................................ 407 II. Dual Regulation on the Ground: Cooperative Federal/State Programs in Federal Public Lands Planning and M anagem ent .............................................. 408 Copyright © 1988 by ECOLOGY LAW QUARTERLY * Gail Achterman, Linus Masouredis, Jan Stevens, John Thorson, Johanna Wald, and Charles Wilkinson have all read previous versions of this Article. Special thanks are due to Karen Nardi for her research on preemption and for a guided tour of early Granite Rock matters, to Leonard Wilson, our colleague on much of the initial field work for this project, and to Carolyn Yale for her assistance on cooperative management programs. We are also grateful for the assistance of our Ecology Law Quarterly editors, especially Chip Miller, Tom Starrs, and Rebecca Kurland. Earlier, abbreviated sections of Part III of this Article appeared in Fairfax & Cowart, Judicial Nationalism vs. Dual Regulation in Public Lands.- Granite Rock's Uneasy Compromises, 17 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl.
    [Show full text]
  • The Story of Kleppe V. New Mexico: the Sagebrush Rebellion As Un-Cooperative Federalism
    Maurer School of Law: Indiana University Digital Repository @ Maurer Law Articles by Maurer Faculty Faculty Scholarship 2011 The Story of Kleppe v. New Mexico: The Sagebrush Rebellion as Un-Cooperative Federalism Robert L. Fischman Indiana University Maurer School of Law, [email protected] Jeremiah Williamson Wyoming Office of the Attorney General Follow this and additional works at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/facpub Part of the Environmental Law Commons, and the Natural Resources Law Commons Recommended Citation Fischman, Robert L. and Williamson, Jeremiah, "The Story of Kleppe v. New Mexico: The Sagebrush Rebellion as Un-Cooperative Federalism" (2011). Articles by Maurer Faculty. 454. https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/facpub/454 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles by Maurer Faculty by an authorized administrator of Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE STORY OF KLEPPE V. NEW MEXICO: THE SAGEBRUSH REBELLION AS UN-COOPERATIVE FEDERALISM ROBERT L. FISCHMAN* AND JEREMIAH I. WILLIAMSON** INTRODUCTION .......................................................................... 101 I. PUBLIC RANGELAND LAW ................................................ 108 A. Rangeland Conflict and the Taylor Grazing Act ..... 108 B. The Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act ..... 110 II. THE LITIGATION ..............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Educational Study
    1 Transfer of Public Lands Movement A study by the LWV of Grand County for the League of Women Voters of Utah The League of Women Voters of Utah is a non-partisan 501(c)(3) non-profit political organization that encourages the informed and active participation of citizens in government. It works to increase understanding of major public policy issues and influences public policy through education and advocacy. INTRODUCTION What are public lands? Where did they come from? Who owns them? Why are there more of them in the western states than in the rest of the country? What is the Transfer of Public Lands Movement and who is behind it? The public domain once stretched from the Appalachian Mountains to the Pacific Ocean. Of the 1.8 billion acres of public land acquired by the United States through war, treaty, or purchase, two-thirds were given or sold to individuals, corporations, or to the states. What remained has been set aside for national forests, wildlife refuges, national parks and monuments, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands, and other public purposes.1 These lands provide timber, minerals, hydrocarbons, rangelands, water resource protection, wildlife habitat, carbon sequestration, recreation, and solace for citizens and visitors from around the world. BACKGROUND The Transfer of Public Lands Movement is an extension of the Sagebrush Rebellion of the 1970s and 80s. “In 1979, the … ‘sagebrush rebellion’ erupted when, under the leadership of a Republican rancher and state assemblyman, Nevada enacted a statute claiming ownership of BLM lands. A few other interior western states (Arizona, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming) followed suit, with Wyoming also claiming ownership of U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Devolution in Federal Land Law: Abdication by Any Other Name
    Hastings Environmental Law Journal Volume 3 Article 4 Number 2 Winter 1996 1-1-1996 Devolution in Federal Land Law: Abdication by Any Other Name... George Cameron Coggins Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/ hastings_environmental_law_journal Part of the Environmental Law Commons Recommended Citation George Cameron Coggins, Devolution in Federal Land Law: Abdication by Any Other Name..., 3 Hastings West Northwest J. of Envtl. L. & Pol'y 211 (1996) Available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_environmental_law_journal/vol3/iss2/4 This Essay is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hastings Environmental Law Journal by an authorized editor of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. I. Introduction History has come full circle in just fourteen years. In 1981. divesture and deregulation were the bumvords in fed- eral land law as Sagebrush Rebels Reagan and Watt' took office. That movement to abdicate federal responsibility for land management, like the Sagebrush Rebellion itself, failed miserably.2 The wheel turned. Only two years ago, at the 1993 Conference on Public Lands,3 the theme was "ecosys- tem management," and the participants reached a consen- sus that this new wave was inevitable, even if no one could define exactly what it was.4 "Devolution" in Federal Times again changed quickly. The Republican takeover of the House and Senate in the 1994 elections has alarmed Land Law or elated the public land policy wonks who fear or hope that the old Sagebrush themes have arisen from history's scrap Abdication by Any Other Name..
    [Show full text]
  • John C. Ruple: the Transfer of Public Lands Movement
    Articles The Transfer of Public Lands Movement: The Battle to Take “Back” Lands That Were Never Theirs John C. Ruple* Table of Contents INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 3 I. SAGEBRUSH REBELLION REVISITED — THE PUBLIC LANDS TRANSFER MOVEMENT .................................................................. 3 A. Utah’s Transfer of Public Lands Act ........................................ 4 B. Why the Transfer of Public Lands Act Matters ........................ 6 1. The Proliferation of Bad Ideas ........................................... 6 2. Transfer Rhetoric Fuels Revolt .......................................... 9 II. A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE PUBLIC LANDS ........................ ………….14 A. Acquisition of the Public Domain .......................................... 14 B. Federal Land Ownership ........................................................ 16 C. Federal Authority Over Land Pursuant to the Property Clause ................................................................................... 19 D. Federal Disposal of the Public Domain .................................. 21 * John C. Ruple is an Associate Professor of Law (Research), and Wallace Stegner Center Fellow at the University of Utah’s S.J. Quinney College of Law. This paper was made possible by the generous support provided by the AHE/CI Trust, the ESSR Endowment Fund, and the Wilburforce Foundation. The author would also like to thank Professors Myrl Duncan, Robert Fischman, Hillary Hoffman, John Leshy,
    [Show full text]
  • The Property Clause and Its Discontents: Lessons from the Malheur Occupation
    The Property Clause and Its Discontents: Lessons from the Malheur Occupation Michael C. Blumm* Olivier Jamin** The occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon by a group of armed militants led by Ammon Bundy during January 2016 spotlighted public land management for a largely oblivious American public. The militants’ month-long occupation was only the latest of several armed confrontations in recent years, one of them at Bundy’s father’s ranch in Nevada. What made the Malheur incident unusual was not only the length of the occupation but also the claims of the militants that their occupation was based on constitutional principles. We examine those claims in this Article and find them meritless, wholly inconsistent with a long line of Supreme Court interpretations of the plenary federal power to manage federal public lands under the Property Clause. Although there is no credible legal case against federal ownership and management of public lands, the militants and their sympathizers may succeed in their efforts to divest federal-land management in the political arena, epitomized by the 2016 Republican Party platform endorsing federal divestiture. Conveying federal lands to the states, as urged particularly by the state of Utah, however, would be a recipe for privatizing a common birthright of all Americans, inconsistent with moral, if not legal obligations to future generations. Introduction ..................................................................................................... 782 I. Background ......................................................................................... 787 A. The Arizona Standoff ................................................................... 787 B. The Bundy Nevada Standoff ........................................................ 788 DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.15779/Z38W66977S Copyright © 2016 Regents of the University of California * Jeffrey Bain Faculty Scholar & Professor of Law, Lewis and Clark Law School.
    [Show full text]