The Great Utah Landgrab – More Government Overreach
On December 18, 2024 the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance filed a lawsuit in Utah’s Third District Court to challenge the State’s litigation before the U.S. Supreme Court over control of public lands. The lawsuit alleges that Governor Cox and Attorney General Reyes violated Utah’s Constitution and the Utah Enabling Act.
Summary of Utah’s lawsuit against the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and diversion of state resources
On August 20, 2024 Utah filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court, questioning the legitimacy of the BLM ownership of 18.5 million acres of land within Utah. This legal conflict risks diverting significant resources away from more pressing public concerns. Utah has already spent millions on legal fees, which could be better allocated to essential areas like education, healthcare and infrastructure. By prioritizing litigation over public services, the state is overlooking the immediate needs of its citizens.
The Political and Historical Context
Utah’s elected officials and private advocates, who are driving the current lawsuit against the BLM (marking at least the fifth iteration of the old Sagebrush Rebellion), argue that the issues involved are complex. We see the issues as being straight forward. The real question is whether one state – Utah – should receive a windfall of federal land that has been managed on behalf of all Americans for over a century. Ultimately, the proponents’ portrayal of the conflict as “Utah vs. the federal government’” serves as an effective political strategy. Their solution of this question in favor of Utah would have far-reaching implications, not just for Utah but for America.
Serious discussions about how to reclaim Utah’s control over public lands have found their way into the state Legislature. Utah elected officials, specifically the Utah legislature, established a special public lands litigation account for a $14 million lawsuit in 2016 and are creating a new state land management department to take over leasing on public lands from federal agencies.
Historical and Legal Flaws in Utah’s Claims
One of the core weaknesses of Utah’s argument is its reliance on historical claims of land ownership under the guise of State’s Rights. The state contends that it inherited rights to certain public lands from Mexico after the Mexican-American War of 1848. However, this claim is based on a selective reading of historical documents, disregarding the intricate legal and political developments that have legally shaped land ownership in the American West. For instance, the Utah Enabling Act of 1894, which granted Utah statehood, clearly stated that the federal government would retain ownership of all public lands within the state’s borders. The language of the Utah Enabling Act is the same as the other states admitted in the 1890s regarding federal ownership of lands not appropriated to a state.
The relevant passage of the Utah Enabling Act states: “The people inhabiting this State do affirm and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within the boundaries hereof, and to all lands lying within said limits owned or held by any Indian or Indian tribes, and that until the title thereto shall have been extinguished by the United States, the same shall be and remain subject to the disposition of the United States, and said Indian lands shall remain under the absolute jurisdiction and control of the Congress of the United States.” The federal government did, however, appropriate School Trust Lands to Utah to ensure funding for public education. The language and intent of the Enabling Act significantly undermines Utah’s historical claims, casting serious doubt on the validity of Utah’s claim of unappropriated federal lands located in Utah.
Additionally, Utah’s legal position hinges on contested interpretations of federal laws. The state disputes the federal government’s authority to manage public lands and protect natural resources. However, these arguments focus narrowly on technicalities, ignoring the broader purpose of federal land management laws that aim to preserve the nation’s natural heritage for future generations in all fifty states. Utah’s case lacks merit by focusing on legal and historical technicalities instead of broader constitutional principles. The only plausible justification appears to be a calculated political belief that the current U.S. Supreme Court might establish new precedents to expand ‘States’ Rights.’
Legal Strategy and the Supreme Court
The normal course for federal litigation is to file a complaint in a federal district court within the state. After a trial on the merits, a judicial decision is made. The losing party can then appeal the decision to the federal appellate court in its geographic region. This two-step process guarantees that the legal and factual issues in the litigation are decided and thoroughly reviewed. The losing party at the federal appellate court has the right to file a petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the UnitedStates Supreme Court, asking the Court to review the entire record. Every year there are more than 7,000 filed with the Supreme Court. In the last several years, the Supreme Court has accepted anywhere from 100 to a little more than 150 such Writs for review. The attorneys for Utah’s federal lawsuit are engaging in a cynical strategy to get around the more costly, time-consuming and legally rigorous normal federal litigation process.
Beyond legal and historical shortcomings, the practical implications of Utah’s litigation are substantial. A victory for the state would set a precedent that might encourage other states to assert similar claims to federal lands, leading to a fragmented and inconsistent system of state-managed lands. This would erode the national interest in preserving public lands for all Americans.
Practical Implications of Transfer of Federal Lands to Utah
If Utah were to succeed in gaining control of these federal lands, it would assume new responsibilities and expenses, likely including:
Management Costs: Utah would need to hire and train personnel—rangers, ecologists, wildlife and plant biologists, anthropologists, paleontologists, hydrologists, and administrative staff—to oversee the newly acquired federal lands. This would result in substantial ongoing expenses for salaries, equipment and other resources.
Infrastructure Development: The state would likely need to invest heavily in infrastructure such as roads, trails, and visitor centers, especially in remote areas, to support public use. These projects could be costly and time-consuming.
Resource Management: Utah would be responsible for managing natural resources like timber, minerals and wildlife. Developing comprehensive management plans and enforcing regulations would require significant expertise and funding.
Law Enforcement: The state would need to increase law enforcement presence to protect public safety, prevent illegal activities and manage conflicts among various land users. This would require additional personnel, training, and equipment.
Emergency Response: Utah would have to handle emergencies such as wildfires, floods and search-and-rescue operations on these lands. This would require substantial coordination with federal and local agencies, as well as considerable resources.
Dispute Resolution: Managing land use would likely lead to increased disputes and legal challenges, resulting in further litigation costs.
Loss of federal Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT): This loss of these dollars would be in the millions, particularly for rural counties if they acquired any of the federal lands ceded to Utah.
Economic and Ecological Risks
The exact scope of Utah’s responsibilities would depend on the size, location and condition of the lands, as well as the management approach the state would choose. However, this approach would most likely prioritize short-term economic gains over the long-term preservation of natural resources. Federal oversight, while not perfect, offers a more balanced approach to protecting public lands for all Americans. Shifting control to Utah could result in a fragmented management system, compromising these lands’ ecological and recreational value and strength.
Taking control of these federal lands would be a significant financial burden for the state. Currently, the state struggles to maintain its existing public lands due to limited funding for stewardship, maintenance and fire suppression. If Utah were to gain control of this additional federal land, there is concern that the state would be forced to sell or lease much of the newly acquired federal lands to private interests to cover management costs. This could reduce public access and harm wildlife habitats. Utah has previously sold off state-owned lands to private developers or investors in order to balance Utah’s budget.
The ‘Stand for Our Land Campaign’
Amid this legal struggle, the ‘Stand for Our Land’ campaign, financed with Utah taxpayers’ money, has emerged, attempting to rally public support for the state’s costly efforts to regain control of these lands. Advocates of the movement argue that local governance would result in better management of Utah’s natural resources and increased economic opportunities. They claim that state control would allow Utah to make decisions that align more closely with the needs of its residents such as promoting energy development, outdoor recreation and local land stewardship. The campaign has garnered attention from various political leaders and groups who see this as an opportunity to challenge federal oversight and reclaim state autonomy.
Conclusion: The Need for Constructive Dialogue
To summarize, Utah’s ongoing public land litigation is flawed. The state’s historical claims are based on selective, if not incorrect interpretations of the past. Its legal arguments focus on technicalities at the expense of broader principles of public policy, and its actions would have detrimental consequences for land management across the West for present and future generations. Rather than continuing costly legal battles, Utah should seek constructive dialogue with the federal government to address shared concerns over public land management.