OCR Text |
Show Your Man In Washington By U.S. Senator Orrin G. Hatch NO AUCTION OF PUBLIC LANDS Knowledgeable land users do not in any way expect the Western - states to sell public lands when those lands are finally placed in the states' : custody. Quite to the contrary, recent history shows a clear trend for states c to acquire land to preserve it or ac commodate its prudent development. develop-ment. Those with visions of cheap land for fast sale are dreamers indeed in-deed I Historically, the states have executed consensus national land management policies with greater efficiency ef-ficiency than federal agencies. Present Pre-sent policy is: "Keep the land as a : public resource; exercise wise and prudent stewardship over it." Trend Against Selling Land More current history shows the Western states acquiring land by purchase pur-chase or trade. There have probably been some sales, but none that would be disallowed under current federal law. Utah's legislature debated whether to purchase over 200,000 acres of the Deseret Livestock Ranch to increase state land holdings several years ago. Ultimately our elected representatives declined to make the purcliase for purely financial finan-cial reasons - but no disposal of this magnitude has even been proposed for decades. More typical of recent trends are Utah's efforts to get title and rights to lands surrounding Utah and Great Salt Lakes, oil shale lands near Vernal, and tar sands lands in Southeastern Utah. State ownership of shale lands may spell the differece between sufficient petroleum supplies sup-plies and hard times for the entire States Can Do Batter Congress formally instituted this retention policy only in 1976, with the Federal Land Management and Policy Act (FLPMA). Previous policy had been to "dispose" of unappropriated unap-propriated lands by a hodge-podge of sales and homestead schemes.. Nevada is a good case in point. Opponents of the Sagebrush movement move-ment say the state "sold its public lands to the highest bidders." This type of wholesale disposal was also federal policy at the time, of course. Nevada was able to sell her public lands, while the federal government was unable to give away adjacent property under various homestead acts. A Senate staff analysis compared com-pared the state and federal lands and found the average state lands sold were inferior to "unsalable" federal lands. Those state people were efficient effi-cient salesmen indeedl But the point is that state people peo-ple accomplished the goal. States would be expected to preserve and protect the land with more efficiency, too, rf that is the goal. country: Utah has oil shale leasing, regulation and reclamation programs . in place; final federal leasing pro- ' cedures have not been proposed. Similarly, the federal program for tar sands leasing is years behind Utah's. FLPMA allows the U.S. Govern- , ment to sell public lands if the sale is ' a means to better management of i the tract. Western states' policies show every tendency to be at least as stingy with deeds to the public land they own. I Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah is the chief j sponsor of the Western Lands Distribution and Regional Equaliza- tion Act, which would establish a i mechanism to transfer some tracts of ' federal public lands in the West to j state ownership. Driving as if you were late , ' for a dental appointment is a good safe speed. |