Blumm Final Word Doc Headers Whited out3/14/2017 1:12 PM
790 ECOLOGY LAW QUARTERLY [Vol.43:781
roughly 65 percent of the land surface.
53
Utah became the first state to pass a
law demanding the federal government hand over lands to the state.
54
The
Act’s deadline for the transfer expired at the end of 2014 without inducing
federal action, so state Republicans are now pressing to sue the federal
government to claim the federal acres. The state seeks to secure the lands for
mineral development and timber production.
55
Although the TPLA conflicts with congressional authority under the
Property Clause to manage public lands,
56
supporters of the Act make three
arguments in support of its constitutionality.
57
First, they allege that the text of
the Utah Enabling Act demonstrates that both the federal government and the
state intended the Act to commit Congress to dispose of public lands in Utah.
58
Second, they argue that the history of management of western lands shows
federal intent to eventually cede all lands to the states.
59
Third, they claim that
53. See Keiter & Ruple, supra note 11, at 1.
54. Jack Healy & Kirk Johnson, The Larger, but Quieter than Bundy, Push to Take Over Federal
Land, N.Y. TIMES (Jan. 10, 2016), http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/11/us/the-larger-but-quieter-than-
bundy-push-to-take-over-federal-land.html. ALEC, supra note 21, helped transfer advocates in drafting
similar bills in Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, Washington, and Wyoming, but no
bill has been enacted. See Rachael Bale, The Problems with the State Movement to Take Federal Land,
CTR. FOR INVESTIGATIVE REPORTING: REVEAL (Mar. 11, 2015), https://www.revealnews.org/article/the-
problems-with-the-state-movement-to-take-federal-land/.
55. See Healy & Johnson, supra note 54.
56. See Nick Lawton, Utah’s Transfer of Public Lands Act: Demanding a Gift of Federal Lands,
16 VT. J. ENVTL. L. 1, 17 (2014). In cases of conflict between state and federal law, the federal law
prevails under the Supremacy Clause. U.S. Const. art. VI, § 2.
57. See Lawton, supra note 56, at 18–21.
58. See id. at 19. Section III of the Utah Enabling Act provides that the people of Utah
[A]gree that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying
within the boundaries thereof; and to all lands lying within said limits owned or held by any
Indian or Indian tribes; and that until the title thereto shall have been extinguished by the
United States, the same shall be and remain subject to the disposition of the United States.
Utah Enabling Act, §3, 28 Stat. 107 (1894). Proponents of transfer argue that the so called “disclaimer”
requires the United States to extinguish title to public lands, which the United States has failed to do. See
Lawton, supra note 56, at 18. Professors Keiter and Ruple explain why the argument is flawed,
however. See Keiter & Ruple, supra note 11, at 5 (“‘[S]hall’ in an enabling act indicates that at some
future date, the federal government may sell public lands. If [it] does sell more land, five-percent of the
proceeds would go to the state, but the Utah Enabling Act does not obligate the federal government to
dispose of federal lands. Moreover, even if shall is interpreted as a term of obligation, at the turn of the
19
th
century, ‘shall’ meant ‘[m]ay, when used against a government.’”).
59. See, e.g., Donald J. Kochan, A Legal Overview of Utah’s H.B. 148—The Transfer of Public
Lands Act 14–18, THE FEDERALIST SOC’Y (Jan. 2013), http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/detail/a-
legal-overviewof-utahs-hb-148 (“It can not [sic] be supposed the compacts intended that the United
States should retain forever a title to lands within the States which are of no value, and no doubt is
entertained that the general interest would be best promoted by surrendering such lands to the States.”
(quoting President Andrew Jackson, Veto Message of December 4, 1833, reprinted in 3 Messages and
Papers of the Presidents, 1789-1897, at 56-69, http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?
pid=67041)). Professor Kochan’s report claimed that there were “serious legal questions” raised by
Utah’s demand that the federal government gift it some 20 million acres of federal public land, Kochan,
supra, at 5. However, there are serious flaws in several of his arguments: (1) he claimed that it would be
“impracticable” to believe that the state would disclaim any interference with federal land management
without a corresponding obligation to dispose of federal lands, id. at 13, but the federal government did