OCR Text |
Show Orrin Hatch Federal land policy hurts Westerners. Utah ns Just after the Mormon pioneers arrived in the Salt Lake Valley, the land that is now Utah was ceded to the United States. There was no reason to think that Washington was going to hold on to that land forever since the federal government was seen as the temporary custodian of these lands until they could be disposed of fairly. Over the years, however, that way of thinking has changed, and the policy of the "feds" has become to hold the land in perpetuity. If Utah has been fortunate enough to have been acquired by the United States in 1803, as Nebraska was (in the Louisiana Purchase), things might have been different. The federal government owns only 1.4 percent of the state of Nebraska; yet, because its policy has changed since then, the "feds" hold 66 percent of the land within the borders of Utah. That's 35 million out of the 53 million acres in the state. The policy reversal was so advanced by 1 867 when Alaska was purchased from Russia that the Washington land barons retained 96 percent of the acreage of that state. It would not be quite such an unbearable situation to have the government hold the land if it weren't for the way it is managed. Since 1 964 federal bureaucrats have been tying up mineral and energy resources through liberal interpretation of environmental legislation and policy, combined with wilderness designations to confine land-use to a single use. It is just such a threat that hangs over Utah now. And Utah is not alone. President Carter has proposed massive land set-asides and condemnation of agricultural holdings j above a certain size throughout the West ? in terms of the 1 60-acre water limitation. f Hundreds of bureaucrats with less real 5 experience on the land collectively than I the workers on the smallest Western j cattle ranch are considering a reorganization of natural resource i functions affecting the well-being of the j people. j People in the West recognize the 1 need to preserve the beauty of their I states and are confident of their ability to I do it. It is for this reason that the federal f government should seriously consider J ceding federal lands back to the states. s Several bills have been introduced to '' attempt return of federal lands to individual states. The bills which are j currently before the Energy and Natural Resources Committee would give control f and operation of the lands to the states 5 themselves. Land management can best be exercised by local state governments - the individuals closest to j the people. I i |