| OCR Text |
Show Caution Urged in Viewing Prospects For Future Revenue from Public Lands Utah's revenue from public lands has increased impressively impress-ively in recent years and is expected to grow still more rapidly in the future, but it would be unrealistic to expect this source of income to ease the tax burden significantly, according to Utah Foundation, Founda-tion, the private, non-profit public service agency. Utah's Land Fund, based on land granted' to the state's schools and institutions, has virtually tripled since 1950, and the state's share of revenue reve-nue from mineral development develop-ment on Federal lands in Utah has grown from an average of less than $50,000 a year to nearly $6 million in fiscal 1976, the Foundation noted in a research report released this week. Federal payments to the state have incrased from 37V2 to 50 of the total received from mineral development, devel-opment, under a law enacted by Congress late in 1976. This, and pending developments in minerals of the Great Salt Lake, oil shale deposits in eastern Utah, and the state's huge coal reserves, indicate that future growth will be more rapid than that of the past. "It appears certain that very large sums will come to Utah from these sources, but it would be unrealistic to expect these receipts to replace re-place any significant part of the state's tax structure," the Foundation noted. Talk of "billions of dollars worth of minerals" in the Great Salt Lake, billions of barrels of potential oil in the shale and tar sand deposits, and immense coal reserves tends to make many citizens over-optimistic about the prospects of future state revenue. rev-enue. Even though huge sums may be realized, such factors as inflation and continued growth must be taken into account in appraising the future. fu-ture. In 1910, the Utah State Office of Education reported total expenditures for operation opera-tion of the public schools of about $2.3 million. If it had been known at that time that the revenue to the Uniform School Funds from state lands would be $6.2 million in fiscal 1976, it would have been assumed that no other support sup-port for the schools would be needed, and that the school program could be enriched enormously. Under 1976 conditions, however, the $6.2 million from public land represented less than l'z of the $420.5 million total expenditure for public education in Utah. Utah was granted four sections sec-tions of each township (36 square miles) within the state for the support of public schools, plus other grants of land to other state institutions when the state came into the Union in 1896. Originally land "mineral in character" could not pass to the state, but under the Dawson Act of the 1950's the state has been able to select land "mineral in character" in lieu of land "mineral in character" originally origi-nally included in designated school sections, but which could not be transferred to the state. Lands that had been sold before statehood or that have been included in Federal withdrawals are subject to such "in lieu" selections. In addition, the state receives a percentage share of revenues from mineral development on Federal land within the state's borders. Oil and gas development in recent years have greatly increased the return from public lands, whether state or Federally owned.' There is pending a lawsuit concerning Utah's selection of "in lieu" lands in the oil shale land of the Uintah Basin, which have not yet been awarded to the state. Bonus payments of more than $70 million have already been made by lessors of a part of those lands, and the money is being held in escrow - and accumulating interest - until the lawsuit between the State of Utah and the Bureau of Land Management is decided. Utah will receive all of this money if it wins the st will receive its shaiT the Federal Mineral h Act even if the court? goes against the state" The State Land p.'. ceives a substantial si investments, especuu, : 1959 when state 1' changed to permit a v range of investment t ing corporate bonds stocks. Average ret,,,,, state on Land Fund j-' ments was less that 3' 1958 under the old rations, ra-tions, but more than 6: 1976 under the more " provisions of the la " |
