String of Broken Congressional "Promises"

However, in 1976, Congress enacted a policy to unilaterally alter this 200-year-old obligation, moving to retain forever the public lands in federal ownership, with the Federal Lands Policy Management Act, or FLPMA.  Under FLPMA, Congress promised there would be multiple use, sustained yield, with local planning on the public lands. Congress also promised to pay western states and communities for not utilizing their lands and resources to fund the education of their own children and care for their own communities.  These "promises" are known as PILT (Payment In Lieu of Taxes); SRS, (Secure Rural Schools funds); and FML (Federal Mineral Lease payments).

PILT payments by some estimates were only 13 cents on the dollar of the average taxable value of the land. SRS payments were only a fraction of the revenues local communities had generated from harvesting timber.  Traditionally, timber harvesting kept the forest fuel loads in check and local economies thriving.  As for FML, states east of Colorado with the same statehood promises retained 100% of their mineral lease royalties instead of the 48% "promised" to western states by Congress.

FLPMA imposed an untenable  "deal" upon the western states to be paid paltry amounts for not utilizing their own lands and resources.  This year, under the guise of "sequestration" to cut federal expenses, the federal government rather began cutting western revenues in the form of PILT, SRS and FML cutbacks. 

So, Congress breaks its 200-year-old obligation to dispose of the public lands. Instead, it "promises" PILT, SRS, FML concessions, and multiple use, sustained yield with local planning to placate western states.  Now, it is reneging on even those terrible, substitute "promises," while imposing ever-increasing restrictions on states, communities, businesses and individuals from utilizing their own lands and resources to care for their own communities, lands and forests, and grow the national economy in the process.

Multi-State TPL Legislation

Fortunately, in 2009, the United States Supreme Court opened the door for a resolution of this economic and environmental dilemma facing not only western states but also our nation. In Hawaii v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously declared that "the consequences of a State's admission are instantaneous" such that Congress does not have the authority to unilaterally alter or diminish "the uniquely sovereign character of that event" particularly "where virtually all of the State's public lands are at stake."  This makes sense.  If Congress could unilaterally alter or diminish the very terms of statehood, states would cease to be states and would become mere administrative subdivisions of an all-powerful national government. 

This decision led to further investigation into the terms of statehood and why the federal government ever held title to the public lands in the first place.  Based on these investigations, five states have now passed legislation (ID, MT, NV, UT, and WY) to analyze the process for the transfer of public lands to willing western states.  The South Carolina Assembly passed a resolution supporting the transfer of public lands because eastern states are spending billions - the federal government doesn't have - to pay western states to not utilize their own lands and resources to care for themselves.  Other states, east and west, are presently contemplating similar legislation.  

Please make sure your local, state, and national representatives are actively engaged in this effort.

Recently, the Federalist Society, a non-profit organization of 40,000 constitutionally focused lawyers, scholars and professors, commissioned a  Legal Overview of Utah's HB 148 - The Transfer of Public Lands Act.  Please refer your local, state, and national representatives to this important Legal Overview.