The State Division of Lands could look after the affairs of trust lands more effectively if it were relieved of the responsibility for sovereign lands, the division director said Monday.
Sovereign lands are those under the beds of navigable beds and rivers. They were granted to the state for the public good. The bulk of the income from these lands goes into the state's school fund by legislative mandate. Trust lands were set aside at statehood to provide financial support specifically for schools, universities and other particular beneficiaries. Income goes into a permanent trust account and the interest goes to the beneficiaries.Having the division responsible for the management of both types of land is burdensome, said Director Richard Mitchell. The philosophical differences in the management of the lands creates problems. The sovereign lands are to be managed in the broad public interest, while the trust lands are to be managed for maximum income to the beneficiaries.
In addition, many state agencies become involved in managing the complex, integrated resources of the sovereign lands. Water resources, for instance, has authority to determine how the water above the beds is managed, parks and recreation have an interest in shoreline use and the division of wildlife resources is charged with managing animal life both in the water and on the shorelines.
Mitchell suggested to a legislative task force studying trust lands issues that it consider recommending a transfer of the responsibility for the 1.5 million acres of sovereign lands to the Department of Natural Resources.
He also suggested that removing fire control and forestry supervision from the lands division would further uncomplicate the trust lands management. He posed the possibility of giving fire control responsibility to Utah State University and forestry to the state's Department of Agriculture.
The task force did not take any specific action but will consider a number of alternatives for a division of the various responsibilities.
Now in its second year, the task force is trying to resolve a number of problems with trust land management. The presence of non-trust functions in the division clouds that management, particularly in the areas of cost accounting.
Trust land income, by constitutional mandate, is not to be spent for other purposes. However, Mitchell acknowledged that some employees divide their time among the management responsibilities given the division and that it isn't always possible to assure that trust land management funds are used only for the trust lands. He said in one instance, $58,000 was taken from the land grant maintenance account instead of from the state's general fund and used for other purposes.
Last winter, the Legislature passed a bill that prohibits the division from siphoning 20 percent of the trust land permanent account interest to the management account. That created a loss of more than a half-million dollars to the management account. The task force is considering several ways to offset that loss. Several recommendations are expected for the 1993 legislative session.
Mitchell said the division needs flexibility in its funding to account for changes in the markets involved in various activities on the trust lands.