Utah's school and institutional trust lands must be administered for the benefit of the students and other beneficiaries for whom they were created, Gov. Mike Leavitt told an advisory board that is beginning a study of the issue.
The lands, which included more than 7 million acres at statehood, are now down to about 3.6 million acres of surface lands, with about a million more acres of subsurface mineral lands. Four sections in each 36-square-mile township were identified when Utah became a state for the purpose of helping finance the state's public education system and other special services.Leavitt warned that coming up with the ideal administrative scheme may not be easy. Ninety-seven years of checkered history predate the current attempt to find an effective format, he said.
In that many years, the administrative configuration has changed on average once every six years, said Kevin Carter, assistant director of the Division of State Lands and Forestry, which currently administers the lands.
The advisory committee will have to look at "policies that seemed to make good sense at the time and some that still make good sense," Leavitt said. He told members they were called to study the issue because of a perception that "we have drifted away from management (of the lands) for schoolchildren in favor of other constituents."
Interest in the trust lands has been renewed in recent years by groups that believe Utah has failed to capitalize on the potential income from the lands, sometimes because of lax administration.
The advisory group held its first meeting Thursday in an unofficial capacity, since the appointments of its nine members have not yet been ratified by the state Senate. Leavitt said he had failed to provide the legislative body with complete information, but said the ratifications are expected before their next meeting.
The board was created by a bill passed last winter after the Legislature failed to act on a more comprehensive measure that would have drastically changed the way the trust lands are managed. Legislators agreed that the issue needs more in-depth study before major changes are made. The advisory group will make recommendations this fall for consideration during the 1994 legislative session.
Leavitt charged the group with setting a direction that brings trust-land management back to a single purpose, "but you can't redirect 97 years of history with one stroke." Significant change may take a series of steps over a period of time, he said. "And don't forget, there may be different views of what most benefits school-chil-dren."
Vernal lawyer Gayle McKeachnie, a former Utah legislator and a current member of the State Land Board, gave a brief history of Utah's trust lands and the legal definitions that guide trust relationships. Courts have repeatedly ruled that a trustee must have undivided loyalty to a trust's beneficiaries and cannot benefit others to the detriment of those beneficiaries, he said.
McKeachnie said Utah's Legislature itself has passed laws at times that violate those trust principles.
Among issues the advisory group is expected to study are the relationship of the lands division to its parent agency, the Department of Natural Resources; whether non-trust functions, including sovereign lands, fire control and forestry, should remain the responsibility of the division; and what kind of governance would best serve the purposes of the trust.
The group has been directed to hold public meetings and provide other forums for public contributions to the debate.