OCR Text |
Show SAVE THE CANAL WITH A CALL Vol. 10, NO. 35 PAGE SIX August 30, 1979 35C Salt Lake City, Utah 84115 HATCH SEEKS WESTERN LANDS TRANSFER tinental states west of the 100th meridian (Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, Idaho, Washington, Oregon, Nevada, Arizona and California) may obtain title to all or part of the federally-hel- d unappropriated public lands within their borders. The bill would have the effect of turning over up to 544 millions of acres of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and. National Forest Service lands in 13 states to state control. The lands eligible for transfer contain enormous reserves of minerals and energy resources in the forms of oil, natural gas, coal, oil shale, tar sands, and uranium ore. Federal ownership of these lands has been cast as a roadblock to development of resources in the Western states where federal control ranges from a low of 29 - HATCH SENATOR Orrin Sen. Hatch of Utah has introduced a bill to transfer ownership of millions of acres of unappropriated Western public lands from Washington, DC to the state capitals. Known as the Western Lands - ' Washington:- Distribution - and Regional Equalization Act of 1979 (S 1680), - the Hatch bill establishes a procedure by which the 1 con percent in Washington, to a high of 87 percent in Nevada. Alaska, where federal control of 95 percent of the state has been subject of a controversy all its own, and Hawaii are are also included in the bill. A plpropriated lands not eligible for transfer included National Parks, National Monuments, federal bird and wildlife refuges, x National .Recreation Areas,' and components of the National Wilderness System and the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The federal government would retain title to military reservations as well as lands necessary for post offices and other federal buildings. The new procedure would re- quire establishment of a seven- - member Federal Land Transfer Board (FLTB) when a state requests a transfer of land, to determine whether the applying state has complied with all transfer provisions. Upon certifying a states compliance, the FLTB would transfer titles, rights and Three interests to the state. members of the board are to be appointed by the President from a list of candidates submitted by the Governor of the state, and one member each would be appointed by the Secretaries of Interior, The Agriculture, and Defense. President would appoint a nonvoting chairman of the board. All existing contracts between the federal government and private entities would be honored by the states land management agencies. The law would also require s states to establish their own land management agencies to manage d lands for the the ultimate benefit and use of all the people of the United States ... in newly-acquire- with conformity established concepts of multiple use...and in such a manner as will maximize the conservation and preservation of natural resources, wildlife habitat, wilderness historical values, values, artifacts and antiquities and in a manner which will permit development of compatible public uses for recreation, agriculture, grazing, mineral and timber production, and development, production and transmission of energy and other public utility services to provide maximum State land balanced benefits... commissions would assume these responsibilities as a condition of Continued on page 8 Jfl (ll T (til Ini .. ro By Parley Jensen Assistant Information Director American Farm Bureau Federation " UTAH INDEPENDENT '57 E. Oakland Salt Lake City, Utah 84115 Ridiculous, silly, totally asinine, unrealistic, senseless, immoral if not illegal, a cruel hoax, frustrating, demoralizing, disruptive, a real bummer thats a sample of used by farmers around the West to describe the proposed 160-aclimitation. the-languag- e re SECOND CLASS POSTAGE PAID AT Salt Lake City, Utah dr. gnrt B, mm Can a farm family make a decent living on 160 acres of land irrigated with BOR water? No, say farmers all over the West, where the Bureau of Reclama- e tion operates. Farm Bureau supports repeal of the limit in the law. 160-acr- oo 00 Acreage limitation is a completely antiquated concept in today's agriculture," comments Frank Nishigu-ch- i, Garland, Utah, farmer and presi-- : dent of the Utah Farm Bureau. It is regressive and would stifle agricu- ltures progress. ' In August 1977, Secretary of Inter- ior Cedi Andrus of Idaho exploded a blockbuster when he announced that he proposed to enforce the Reclama- tion Act of 1902. This law, among other things, limits individual owner- ship to 160 acres on farmland that re-iws irrigation water from a Bureau of Reclamation jBOR) project . Other provisions of Andrus s pro-pouls would reqinre .owners to hve within 50 miles of the land getting the water, severely limit the amount of land a farmer could lease, prohibit multiple ownership of land unless a direct lineal family relationship exists, and subject the sale of such farmland in excess of the limitations to a lottery or other random selection ofabuyer. Since that first announcement and later district court rulings the BOR has public hearings considerably modified its stance. - While proposing to increase the num- ber of acres that can be owned or leased in a, BOR project, officials on limitations, residency re-quirements and the lottery provision all in the wame of 'preserving .the family term. The timetable calls for publication Continued on page 7 |