'Sagebrush rebellion' providing better understanding of public land issues Controversy stirred up by the "Sagebrush rebellion" has improved communication" and cooperation between bet-ween federal land administrators and western land users, even though the issue has not yet come before the courts or the Congress, according to Utah Foundation, the private, non-profit public service agency. ("Sagebrush rebellion" is the name popularly given a demand that ownership of public lands in western states be given by the federal government to the respective states.) "At the present time, chances of the 'rebellion' succeeding completely are considered slim by most observers, but many of the movement's supporters feel that pressures have been generated that have markedly improved im-proved relations between Washington and land users in the western states," the Foundation notes in a research report released this week. Some partisans of the movement to give public lands to the states claim that the states are being denied their rightful benefits from the lands within their borders, while others assert that from a purely monetary point of view, western states would lose substantially if they took ownership of the public domain. Utah Foundation points out that there would be both fiscal advantages ad-vantages and disadvantages to such a change, some of them clear-cut and others more nebulous. Under existing conditions, receipts from federal lands administered by the Bureau of Land Managment and U.S. Forest Service are shared with the states on a number of different formulas for-mulas (50 percent of mineral receipts go to the states and lesser percentages of revenues from other sources). In fiscal 1978, revenues from BLM lands in Utah came to $27.6 million, of which approximately $12.0 million was returned to the state. Net revenues from U.S. forest lands in Utah the same years were about $2.5 million, with some $875,000 going to the state. Combined total receipts were $30.1 million, and payments to the state were about $12.9 million. If the state had owned the land in 1978 it would have received the full $30.1 million rather than the $12.9 million, a net gain for Utah of $17.2 million, the Foundation notes. Receipts from mineral-rich Utah lands are expected to increase in the future, particularly in response to the need for additional energy. If Utah had owned the public lands within its borders in 1978, however, it would have lost revenue from several federal sources: $8.9 million in payments counties "in lieu of taxes", to compensate for federal lands not on the tax rolls; special highway fund benefits which Utah receives as a "public land state" amounting to nearly $5 million. "Direct cash benefits that would be lost would be a few million dollars a year less that the direct dollar benefits that would be gained by state ownership owner-ship of the land", the Foundation states. "However, if the state owned the lands the responsibility for and cost of administering those lands would also be transferred from the federal government to the state." In 1978, the BLM listed expenditures for Utah operations of $12.4 million, and Forest Service expenditures were listed at $29.3 million, a total of $41.7 million for the year. "It does not follow, however, that the state would 'lose' this amount, or have to expend a comparable amount if the lands were owned by the state", the Foundation notes. A large portion of the federal administrative ad-ministrative cost is for payrolls. These would be lost to Utah if the state took ownership of the land, but it has been demonstrated that direct and indirect state and local taxes paid by individuals in-dividuals do not cover the cost of services ser-vices furnished by state and local government to these individuals and their families (costs of police and fire protection, schools, etc.) It is further pointed out that the state would not necessarily continue the same programs now being carried out and that the cost of state administration might be less. The state already has an extablished administrative structure in its Division of State Lands, which would reduce the cost of taking over public land administration, ad-ministration, although it is recognized that the existing state operation would have to be expanded approximately nine times. "While no exact dollar and cents balance sheet can be drawn up at this time, it appears that added costs to the state would exceed added dollar benefits, at least initially. However, it is possible that rising revenues from increased resource production could greatly reduce the differential or eliminate it entirely in the future", the Foundation states. "It does not appear, however, that the fiscal balance sheet is the real crux of the issue embodied in the sagebrush rebellion. It may be secondary to the basic question of who control the land and what policies are set for its use and the development of its resources, both tangible and intangible. The improvement im-provement in understanding between federal land administrators and western land users which is already evident may mark a significant 'victory' 'vic-tory' for the sagebrush rebellion, whether or not it reaches its stated goals."