OCR Text |
Show p ,?( Major Federal Lands Within the Forty-eight Contiguous States Pi? f PWmS- r Mir. -o- 0 vjv NVws v4 lira r--;L.v--iii GminR districts on public domain (BLM) LoJj PX 7 National forests '-a' " Sr ? 0 National wildlife refuges o el National parks and monuments 111 "-v 1; j The Interior Colony The Public Diniiteiresfl By Kenneth L. Gray, Ph.D. As it becomes increasingly dear that change in public 3 land policy is needed, those nih vested interests in the , jatus quo may find new ways to quell criticism. For example, exam-ple, the Utah State Director of the Bureau of Land Management Manage-ment instructed his employees , in an employee newsletter to forego their constitutional ! tight to speak out on political issues related to administration administra-tion of the public lands. The string of abuses of the public interest by the Bureau of Land Management has aroused the indignation of 'j many citizens. Grievances f against the Bureau of Land Management are not just a recent occurrence; for example, exam-ple, the national BLM Director received three thousand pieces of mail per week in 1948. Ranchers and wool growers have long complained against ' i BLM; more recently mining interests, public officials at all levels, businessmen in a variety of professions, recrea-tionists, recrea-tionists, and even environmentalists environmen-talists are complaining, due to unconscionable BLM actions. Case studies of abuse of the public interest can be found for each year of the agency's existence; one of the more interesting cases, known as the "St. Christopher Case," occurred in 1948. In 1948 the Bureau of Land Management evicted a small group of missionaries from their farm near the San Juan River in desolate south western west-ern Utah. The missionaries had purchased the land from the farmer who homesteaded it and began raising crops to feed the poverty stricken Navaho children nearby. Duti: ful BLM officials discovered that the original homestead had not been properly filed and, armed with the rationalization rationali-zation that they were protecting protect-ing the public interest, served the missionaries with an eviction notice. In response to a public outcry, Congress passed a special act to reinstate the missionaries, and BLM was forced to relinquish the land. Since an average of only, four percent of each state east of the Rockies is owned by the federal government, Interior Department employees and officials frequently explain why the federal government must own an average of forty-nine percent of each western state. Excuses for this inequality are legion; one of the most popular is the suggestion that the West includes America's great "unsettled "un-settled regions" and must be carefully managed in order to preserve environmental integrity. integ-rity. Certainly it is hoped that the less settled portions of the West will not be degraded as thoroughly as has been the eastern seaboard, but there is no reason to believe that imported interior colonial a-gents a-gents can protect the West better than local residents and their elected officials. Interior Department supporters sup-porters have often argued that sparcely settled areas are not entitled to home rule privileges privi-leges as are densely settled areas. By such logic, the founding fathers could not have declared independence, since the density of settlement in the original thirteen colonies colo-nies was less than one third the density of the average western state today. The density of settlement at the time of the American Revolu- -tion was about equal to that of" Idaho today. With the advent of the energy crisis, it has been argued that the western states are America's great resource lands and therefore must remain under federal control. Reasoning by such logic, Texas and Oklahoma would be largely owned by the federal government because of their oil reserves and Pennsylvania, for its coal deposits. Instead, the federal government owns two percent, three percent, and two percent, respectively, of these states. The thirteen western states are in a class apart from the other thirty-seven, as is shown on land ownership maps. The federal government owns 66 percent of the land in Utah, only 2 percent in Pennsylvania; Pennsylvan-ia; 86 percent in Nevada, less than 1 percent in Iowa; 64 percent in Idaho, 2 percent in Texas; 44 percent in Californ-ia-the most populous state in the Union; 1 percent in New York-the second most populous popu-lous state. Supporters of the Interior Department have defended inequality in land ownership on the grounds that states more recently admitted to the Union are to be, treated differently than states nearer the eastern seaboard. However, How-ever, court cases which have addressed the problem of state inequality have unequivocably enforced the idea that all states are entitled to equal rights. In an 1883 Supreme Court decision, for example, it was noted, "Equality of constitutional right and power is the condition of all the states of the Union, old and new." (Escanaba Co. versus Chicago) In defense of the Bureau of Land Management, it has been argued that the present system is not really unjust since a portion of the fees collected are returned to the states. Of $14,977,580 collected collec-ted in 1974 in Utah, for example, $5,081,318 was returned re-turned to the state, as required by law. However, this does not negate the colonial status of the western states; the great colonial powers of history have pacified the natives of the ruled lands by returning a portion of the extracted tribute. It has also been argued that BLM performs a public service for western citizens by improving improv-ing and maintaining the public lands. However, of the $162, 850, 659 which Congress appropriated for BLM operations opera-tions in 1974, only about $18 million, or 12 percent was spent on range improvements, maintenance, construction of roads and trails, land and water conservation, and pest control. The other 88 percent ($145 million) was spent on administrative management costs. Due to energy resource demands, the need to develop the public lands has accelerated accelera-ted in recent years; nevertheless, neverthe-less, an entrenched bureaucracy bureau-cracy and apathetic Congress have made no plans for disposal of this land to the people and governments in the West. Foreseeing the day when there would be many states in the Union, James Madison insisted that "the Western States neither would nor ought to submit to a union which degraded them from an equal rank with the other states." In the twentieth century, it can be said that Madison's prophesy has been half right and half wrong. Clearly now more than ever Western states ought not to submit to inequal rank; however, how-ever, they continue to be under the tightening control of the Bureau of Land Management. Manage-ment. (Copyright, Kenneth L. Gray) This is the concluding article in the series. The author would appreciate communication from those who have read "The Interior Colony" with interest. Please write to: Dr. Kenneth L. Gray, Box 5, Bountiful, Utah 84010. FULL GOSPEL FELLOWSHIP MEETING The Full Gospel Fellowship meeting will be held this month on Friday, April 23. They will gather at 7 p.m. at the Ramada Inn. A guest speaker will be featured and the public is invited to join them for a meal and fellowship. |