Environmentalists, legal experts and lawmakers have staked out varying opinions on Utah’s controversial federal lands case, which the U.S. Supreme Court recently declined to take up.
Utah has the second-most federally owned land in the country, with 64.9% within its boundaries. In its bill of complaint, Utah said the land overseen by the Bureau of Land Management was making the federal government money, and they weren’t sharing it. The state argued that as many as 18.5 million acres of federally-owned land weren’t being used validly and should be given to the state to manage.
Though the Supreme Court refused to hear the case, the future of Utah’s federal lands and who manages it is still very much up for debate.
Utah Gov. Spencer Cox, Utah Attorney General Derek Brown, Senate President Stuart Adams, R-Layton, and Speaker of the House Mike Schultz, R-Hooper, announced they will continue their efforts to control Utah’s “unappropriated” lands and likely file the suit in federal district court.
Steve Bloch, the legal director of the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, told the Deseret News he’s taking the state leaders’ statement at face value. A legal thorn in the state’s side, Bloch filed a response lawsuit last December. Filed against Cox and former Attorney General Sean Reyes, the lawsuit accuses Utah’s state leaders of violating Article Three of the Utah Constitution, which states that the people of Utah will “forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands within (its) boundaries” in favor of the U.S. government.
He said SUWA is moving forward with its case so that the courts can clarify and “ultimately issue a decision making clear that the language in the (Utah) Enabling Act and the Constitution means what it says” regarding management of public lands.
Time for Congress to intervene on public lands?
However, some call for government intervention via legislative power.
During an episode of the Sutherland Institute’s “Defending Ideas” podcast, Sutherland Constitutional Law & Religious Freedom Fellow Bill Duncan said Congress should take the next step regarding federal land management.
“Congress should step forward and say it’s not reasonable for the federal government to continue to manage so much land in the Western states” and that management should be given to the states via their elected representatives.
“They can make changes to existing law, they can create new laws that clarify exactly what executive branch agencies can and can’t do in terms of managing land,” he said, “or they can require that the federal government dispose of that land, meaning allow states to use it as state public land” or other purposes.
Duncan said that some of the nearly 65% of managed land is used appropriately (such as for military bases or national parks) but agreed with the state that much of it is not used for a federal purpose.
It’s an important argument, he said, “because the people who live close to that land, who benefit from it, (and) who could be affected by decisions about how it’s controlled, clearly would like more say in how it’s being used and managed through their representatives who are close to them. State and local officials.”
Approximately 93% of Garfield County in southern Utah is managed by the federal government. County Commissioner Leland Pollock expressed disappointment that the Supreme Court declined to hear the state’s case, noting that the county’s economy depends heavily on the land’s natural resources for industries such as mining, logging and grazing.
He told the Deseret News that his entire county has a year-round population of around 5,300 because less than 10% of the land is available for private use and jobs are scarce.
“The reason it would have been good for my county if this would have gone forward is because, eventually, the state would have had some kind of jurisdiction of the management, and all of those jobs we have lost through the years would have come back,” he said, explaining that jobs have gradually decreased since former President Bill Clinton established the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument — that spans 1.7 million acres — under the Antiquities Act in 1996.
Opponents of the state’s lawsuit argue that transferring control to the states would deny all Americans the right they currently have to access and enjoy lands that are federally owned.
Poll shows how Westerners feel about public land management
A recent HarrisX poll for Desert News of 1,512 registered voters in seven western states (Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming) found that people are generally pretty evenly split on whether the federal government owns too much land or just enough.
Utah had the most significant difference: 67% believe the U.S. owns too much, compared to 30% who are content with the amount managed.
Deeda Seed, senior campaigner at the Center for Biological Diversity, told the Deseret News that although the BLM has historically favored using federal land for industry purposes, “they’ve started to incorporate conservation of land as a resource and recognizing that conserved land has inherent value, especially as our population grows and pressure to develop every last inch increases.”
The state’s marketing campaign, Stand For Our Land, has been showcased across billboards and shared online to show Utahns how little of the state is actually private versus public land. According to the website, “the state wants to see public lands remain in public hands and available to all Utahns and visitors of all ages and abilities to be managed for multiple uses for current and future generations.”
When Westerners were asked what state’s should be allowed to do with public lands, the poll showed they were most likely to support states setting their own tax policies and regulations for the land. They also liked the idea of Utah’s lawsuit setting a precedent for federally-owned land.
But Westerners were split 50-50 on whether states should be allowed to “develop, lease, or sell land” turned over to them.
Bloch said that if the state of Utah gained control of federal land, it would not become the recipient of it.
“Why would we think that Utah would be the one that would be the recipient of those lands at the end of the day, as opposed to Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos, or any other billionaire/millionaire,” he said. The state has been “spending so much time talking about how state government would like to be the land manager for those lands, but that’s not the result that they’re asking for. ... So when they talk about how the state would be a good steward of the land, the state won’t be the one who ends up holding these vast tracts of federal land if they’re ever successful in their litigation.”
From the perspective of a concerned Utahn, Seed views the lawsuit as a “pointless battle” and a misuse of taxpayer dollars that is causing confusion amongst residents:
“People should be asking themselves, ‘why there’s such a furor over this?’ Because, actually, public lands in Utah are managed fairly well.”
“Obviously, there are lots of things that everyone could do better, but this isn’t the problem that the state makes it out to be,” she said, adding that she believes the only reason the state considers federal land management an issue is because they want the power to dispose of these lands themselves.
Ultimately, Seed said it’s a tactic to take land that belongs to all of us and put it under the control of the Utah Legislature.
Utah Legislature addresses federal lands
Here are three federal land-related bills to track in this year’s Utah legislative session:
SB61, “Energy Corridor Amendments” (Sen. Derrin R. Owens, R-Fountain Green): This bill strengthens property owner protections during eminent domain actions, promotes the use of federal lands for utility projects where feasible and increases accountability through mandatory reporting and federal coordination.
SB158, “Sale or Lease of Federally Managed Public Land Amendments” (Sen. Keven J. Stratton, R-Orem): Aims to streamline the process for state and local entities seeking to acquire federally managed public land and improve oversight of these activities.
SB236, “State Parks Amendments” (Sen. Kathleen A. Riebe, D-Cottonwood Heights): Seeks to formally establish Big and Little Cottonwood Canyons as state parks, provide mechanisms for land management, and ensure the parks’ financial self-sufficiency.