Utah Congressional lawmakers’ land grab agenda violates fiduciary duty to the American public

 

Utah politicians in particular, western lawmakers generally, and Congress as a whole will be in breach of their fiduciary duty to the American people if they allow Utah and other western states to succeed in their illegal land grab for public lands.

It is often claimed that the federal government is “land grabbing” but the only way for that to be true is if the federal government is grabbing state or private lands. The real culprit in the land grab scheme here is the state of Utah and other western states joining their crusade to take public lands.

There are a lot of claims being made about what the Constitution says, how it should be interpreted (strict or loose), and what the intent of the founders was. The Constitution spells things out explicitly and implicitly, but interpreting it isn’t as simple as many claim.

According to Robert G. Natelson, University of Montana School of Law, “Scholars across the political spectrum agree that for purposes of constitutional interpretation, the legally relevant issue regarding a particular clause of the Constitution is not the original intent of the drafters, but the clause’s objective meaning to the ratifying public.”

Furthermore, he goes on to state that “although in its fundamentals eighteenth century English was the same language we use today, there were many subtle difference, and those differences can deceive. One trying to deduce original meaning, therefore, should possess a good eighteenth century dictionary, a working knowledge of Latin, and access to contemporaneous legal materials.”

In other words, it’s not as straightforward as it sounds and even constitutional scholars struggle with it. Justice Stephen Breyer once said that the “general purposes” behind the constitution – the values underlying it – should assist courts in construing the document.

According to the article, “Federal Land Retention and the Constitutions Property Clause (hereafter referred to as “the article”),” federalists and anti-federalists were surprisingly unanimous in the political values they were trying to promote, and wanted a charter that would realize those values. The Constitution was ultimately a political bargain (the grand bargain) between the American public and soon to be federal government.

The political values unanimously agreed upon and which underlie the Constitution include but are not limited to: 1. Republicanism or popular government under the rule of law, 2. Decentralization or limited federal jurisdiction to enumerated powers, and 3. the ideal of fiduciary government, i.e., that public officials were unanimously seen as “guardians, agents, servants, or trustees of the people.”

There are a lot of loud voices making claims about the government’s responsibility to the people and making claims of the government not working for the people. Right now those claims are largely coming from ranchers, militants, and partial politicians who believe the government (meaning actions by the government they don’t like) is not taking care of them, or not doing their bidding.

But this view of government responsibility is flawed, biased, and narrow in a historical and constitutional context which was heavily influenced by the legal concept of fiduciary responsibility. The ideal of fiduciary responsibility was founded in a strong public trust doctrine which at the time of the founding was meant in a legally binding way as a universal responsibility to act as “guardians, agents, servants, and trustees” for the American public as a whole, not for special groups.

As stated in the article, this meant that “officials were to act with care and loyalty, in good faith, within their instructions, for the general good, and impartially.” The article goes on to say, “If, for example, a legislative body passed a law that benefited some citizens at the disproportionate expense of others, that legislative body violated its duty of impartiality.”

In other words, doing that would be a government breach of trust. And serious breaches were considered ultra vires – or in the language of the constitution, they were not proper and were therefore void. Attempting to wrestle public lands for ranching would be such a breach.

The western attempt to grab public land that doesn’t belong to them is a breach of that trust to the American public. Today we are witness to a block of western lawmakers pushing for an agenda that benefits a small minority at the expense of the majority. Those lawmakers, while they do have a duty to the people of their state, also have a larger duty to the nation and the American public as a whole which they are violating.

The claim being made from the lowest to the highest levels that the federal government is not allowed to own large swaths of public land as stipulated under the enclave clause is false. If we take the Constitution at face value, what we find under the Property Clause is that the government explicitly has the duty to manage and dispose of land. Implicitly, this reveals that the government can own land as long as it is managed according to the enumerated powers of Congress.

While the Constitution does not state that the government “must” dispose of the land, the case could be made. During the drafting of the Constitution there was widespread belief that the government would accrue land either by purchase or through treaties and that it would be disposed of for westward expansion via homesteading and for economic development.

Based on that, one could argue that all public lands should be disposed of to the highest bidders, either individuals or industry, and in the 1700s that might have been appropriate. Over time, however, disposal of land for the benefit of the American people expanded to include many purposes.

That being said, no one could make the claim that the land was supposed to be disposed of to the states. It isn’t stated, implied, or hinted at in the Constitution anywhere.

The founding generation of the Constitution sought to build the nation by land privatization, not through state land holdings. According to the article, “The ratification record suggests that gratuitous transfer of lands to state governments would have been seen as a partial act, and therefore a breach of public trust.”

It goes on to say that, “Value was to be derived from land for the benefit of all Americans, not merely those who lived in the vicinity. During the ratification debates no one suggested deeding western land to new state governments.”

In fact, “Participants in the ratification debates took firm stands against any land disposition that would benefit one part of the nation at the expense of other parts.”

Therefore, nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the federal government is required to dispose of land to the states. To suggest otherwise is a gross misinterpretation of the Constitution.

The Property Clause of the Constitution dealt with territories from which all public lands came to be. The Enclave Clause on the other hand deals with property within established states. There is a huge difference between those two classes of land. In terms of public lands in Utah, those lands never belonged to the state. They were in fact territorial lands owned by the federal government before Utah became a state; therefore, the Enclave Clause has no bearing on them.

Furthermore, the territorial lands within Utah’s borders upon entrance into the Union were forever relinquished to the federal government upon statehood under the Enabling Act of the Utah state Constitution.

The ensuing assault by Utah Congressional and Senate members is a gross abdication of their fiduciary duty to the American public, and their proposed bills: The Transfer of Public Lands Act and this year’s Utah Public Lands Initiative Act are both improper under their duty and therefore ultra vires breaches of the public trust.

These Congress members and politicians are not only attempting to steal land from the American public via their power in Congress, they are usurping the federal government’s role to manage those lands as a trustee and in so doing are violating their own duty as standing Congressmen to do their jobs for the American public and the nation at large.

They cannot point their fingers at the federal government as some distinct entity that they don’t belong to. They cannot cite that the government is abusing its power or not listening to the people without pointing their fingers at themselves. Furthermore, it could be argued that the abuse of power within the government is coming from these very people.

Public land was not meant to be held for unenumerated purposes. “The federal government’s authority to dispose was unlimited (except for trust standards), but its authority to acquire, retain, and manage was not: all the latter functions could be exercised only to serve enumerated powers.” However, Congress has considerable discretion as to how to effectuate enumerated powers, and reasonable exercises of discretion are respected and supported by the public.

Under Congress’s enumerated powers, they have determined over the years that national objectives include environmental concerns, recreational opportunities, wildlife, scientific purposes, economic benefits, and natural resources and have given power to manage the public’s land to land management agencies. That is consistent with their Constitutional powers.

It is outside of Congress’s enumerated powers, however, to act on behalf of special interests or one group (ranchers for example) over others. Their actions regarding public land must consider all Americans.

The Federal Government has a long history of disposing of public lands which includes attempting to give the lands to the states and to ranchers under President Truman, which both entities declined. Things changed in the 1970s however. Under the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA), disposal guidelines were explicitly spelled out (see link below), which is legally binding today. Like the Constitution, nowhere under FLPMA does it say land must be disposed of to the states.

Congress passed this law under their enumerated powers listed in the Constitution, which means these lands are being managed Constitutionally and within the scope of our form of governance.

Under Constitutional authority, Congress has continued the tradition of making laws that govern the management of public lands in a way that is consistent with ensuring those lands are used and managed as a trust for the benefit of the American public, the nation, and for future generations.

What Utah politicians are doing, if not in outright cahoots with the Bundys’ militant standoff for public lands, is just a smarter version of it and is just as wrong, if not more so because their positions as standing members of Congress requires a high standard of fiduciary duty to the nation.

Sources:

Federal Land Policy and Mangement Act , Disposal: http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wy/programs/planning/rmps/rawlins/rod/appendix.Par.42703.File.dat/Appendix06_Disposal_Criteria.pdf

Robert G. Natelson, Federal Land Retention and the Constitution’s Property Clause: The Original Understanding, 76 U. Colo. L. Rev. 327 (2005), Available at: http://scholarship.law.umt.edu/faculty_lawreviews/73

 

 

The Mendacious Myth: States’ Rights Lies and Those who Peddle Them

“The sagebrush rebels may have peddled legal theories based on a mendacious myth about the Constitution and federal power. But myths exert great power over the way people understand the world and its conflicts (1).” ~ Fischman & Williamson

Photo courtesy of Weber County Forum

What is the lie-laden myth that Utah and many western politicians like Governor Herbert, Senator Lee, Washington County Commission hopeful Victor Iverson, Utah Representative Noel, and pretty much the entire Republican Party are peddling? It is many things but they all fall under the ‘government overreach’ umbrella. The rally cry comes in many forms which includes but is not limited to:

The federal government cannot own property	5. States would use the land differently and better
The federal government promised to give all federal land back to the states	6. The fight to take back federal lands is for the people
States aren’t benefiting from federal land	7. The ‘equal footing doctrine’ means equal economic footing
The government never gave states any lands	8. Local or state governments have no say or control over land management decisions

Left to right, top to bottom: Gov. Herbert, Sen. Lee, Victor Iverson, & Rep. Noel

Some argue that the issue of states’ rights and government over-reach is not about fact but about principle (the assumption being that somewhere along the way something unconstitutional happened). That’s possible, but what this statement over-looks, is that laws represent the concrete reality of principles – and the law and supporting facts can be examined.

For example, some claim that if you only look at the legality of the Cliven Bundy case, then yes, he is in the wrong; but, if you look at the principles, then you will see that the federal government is wrong. They state that the federal government “shouldn’t” have passed environmental laws to begin with (this points us back to the underlying assumption). Others assert that Bundy has neither the law nor principle on his side. The question is: Can one be legally wrong but principally right? We all know that laws can be unconstitutional, as can behavior, so how does one determine which is right and which is wrong when the issue is as convoluted at state verses federal power? Thankfully for us, some things can be known.

Since a principle is a primary source or ingredient that forms the basis of something, in this case, what is constitutional, and behavior is limited by law (which upholds constitutional principles), then we have two options to explore: The constitutionality of the law and the constitutionality of the individual, the group, or the state. Since the constitution is used as the ‘source’ or foundation for law in the U.S., let’s start there.

Photo courtesy of The Liberty Beacon

Federal land ownership began when the original 13 states ceded their “western” lands (between the Appalachian Mountains and the Mississippi River) to the central government between 1781 and 1802. Substantial land acquisition in North America via treaties and purchases began with the Louisiana Purchase in 1803 and culminated with the purchase of Alaska in 1867. In total, the federal government acquired 1.8 billion acres in North America.

The U.S. Constitution addresses the relationship of the federal government to lands. Article IV, § 3, Clause 2 — the Property Clause — gives Congress authority over federal property generally, and the Supreme Court has described Congress’s power to legislate under this Clause as “without limitation (2).”

“The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States.”

Two court cases, Kleppe v. New Mexico and the Sagebruch Rebellion case waged by Nevada, Nev. ex rel. Nev. State Bd. of Agric. v. United States, were both beaten by the Property Clause of the Constitution. But not only that, the ‘equal footing’ doctrine, which is touted as a reason the states should get public lands back on economic grounds, was explained:

“The equal footing doctrine (based on language within Article IV, § 3, Clause 1), and found in state enabling acts, provides new states with equality to the original states in terms of constitutional rights, but has not been used successfully to force the divestment of federal lands. The policy question of whether to acquire more, or to dispose of any or all, federal lands is left to Congress to decide. The doctrine means that equality of constitutional right and power is the condition of all States of the Union, old and new. It does not mean that physical or economic situations among states must be the same (2).”

As for the U.S. government promising they would give all federal lands back to the states; that was never the case, though it may have been the states’ understanding, or standing interpretation. “The initial federal policy generally was to transfer ownership of many federal lands to private and state ownership. Congress enacted many laws granting lands and authorizing or directing sales or transfers, ultimately disposing of 1.275 billion acres. However, from the earliest times, Congress also provided for reserving lands for federal purposes, and over time has reserved or withdrawn areas for such entities as national parks, national forests, and wildlife refuges (2).

Tuweap Ranger Station, Federal Land

Believe it or not, the first direct authority for federal management of these lands, and implicit shift toward ending disposals and retaining lands in federal ownership, was the Taylor Grazing Act, enacted by Congress at the behest of western ranchers. The end of disposals came a few decades later following two laws that were passed in 1964: the Public Land Law Review Commission (PLLRC) and the Classification and Multiple Use Act, which directed BLM to classify lands for retention or for disposal and to manage the lands for multiple purposes, whose recommendations culminated in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA).

FLPMA was passed in 1976 wherein Congress formally declared,

“It is the policy of the United States that the public lands be retained in Federal ownership, unless as a result of the land use planning procedure provided for in this Act, it is determined that disposal of a particular parcel will serve the national interest.”

FLPMA also, however, required more cooperation between federal and local and state governments in regard to land use decisions. In other words, the local and state governments are allowed in the decision making process. This is the right and legal way for local and state officials to address land use plans. It may not win them any political points, but it is the best avenue available. That being said, Congress and the states exercise concurrent, not mutually exclusive, jurisdiction over the public domain. To the extent that the laws of each conflict, federal law is supreme and preempts inconsistent state law.

Back to the divestiture of land by the Federal Government to the states, it began in 1800 in the state of Ohio which led to the establishment of the General Land Office created in 1812 to administer the disposal of federal lands (which as has been stated in previous posts, led to the creation of the BLM).

Congress enacted numerous laws to grant, sell, or otherwise transfer federal lands into private ownership, including the Homestead Act of 1862 and the General Mining Law of 1872. Grants to railroads in the 1870s gave them incentives to create much of the nation’s transportation system. Nearly 816 million acres of the public domain lands were transferred to private ownership between 1781 and 2006.

The federal government also granted 328 million acres to the states, the largest tract given to Alaska. As can be seen, much of the public domain was given back to the states. One of the biggest land grants came in the form of state trust lands, meant to provide funding for schools via revenues made from land development.

Map of state trust land, photo courtesy of earth and science education

State trust land managers lease and sell these lands to generate revenue for current and future designated beneficiaries. Predominantly found in the western United States, 46 million acres of land are currently designated as trust lands and the proceeds from the lease and sale of these lands are distributed into a state’s permanent fund and used for many purposes. In Utah these lands are managed by the State and Institutional Trust Lands Administration (SITLA). From the SITLA website:

“Starting in 1785, the Founding Fathers created a plan whereby territories were granted land before statehood to support schools. In 1894, shortly before Utah became a state, Congress created a land trust including one-ninth of the land of the state to support our public schools. Today, schools still have 3.3 million acres scattered around the state. If these scattered parcels were combined, it would make a parcel of land about the size of the state of Connecticut. These lands are held by the state as trustee for our public schools, which are the beneficiaries (or those that benefit from the proceeds from the trust). The lands are managed by the School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration (SITLA). All net revenue is saved in the permanent State School Fund, which is now over $1 billion. Since 1995, when SITLA was created by the legislature, net revenue has increased from $15 million to about $80 million annually through prudent and profitable management of the lands (3).”

SITLA is very similar to the BLM except in one way (Use of Trust Lands): it is run like a business. In other words, they manage lands for virtually the same purposes, but charge fair market value. For example, fair market value for grazing is $16-$20 a head of cattle on state land, whereas the federal price is roughly $1.30. Politics are what keep the prices at pre-1930s rates on federal land. If Cliven Bundy really had his way, and the lands he grazed were state land, he would be paying upward of 16 times what the government charges. In Utah, SITLA just recently voted to raise grazing prices.

As one author asked, “Why would the commodity interests—ranchers, loggers, et al.—want to own federal lands that already offered such a bounty of subsidies?” The reality is that ranchers did not really want to own the federal lands. Instead, ranchers and their representatives sought to stifle the effects of the 1970s federal legislation increasing environmental restrictions on and competition for the use of the public lands (7). In other words, they didn’t want to share. They did not want equal rights afforded to other stakeholders with interests in the land.

Furthermore, the state of Utah claims it is unfairly being cheated out of economic benefits due to federal lands, but when Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument was designated, the land exchange greatly benefited the state. In fact, one oil and gas parcel acquired by the state in this exchange provided 60% of all state trust land oil and gas revenue in 2006.  Furthermore, the United States essentially wrote Utah’s school kids a $50 million check. (4). While the designation at first appeared to be devastating for the state, it turns out, it has been incredibly profitable.

Governor of Utah Gary Herbert, Photo Courtesy of utahpoliticalcapital.com

So profitable in fact, that the governor is skimming the first $1 million off the top annually to go into a legal account to sue the federal government for control of federal lands (5). To be clear, $1 million annually is going into a fund to sue the federal government, from profits gained via land the federal government gave to the state of Utah. All of this despite the legislative council stating it is a frivolous and wasteful endeavor. In other words, the legislature’s and governor’s own legal team has advised them that they have a slim to no chance of winning.

So based on this history, and current state of land management, is the federal government acting unconstitutionally? I think not. The dishonest players are the states and local politicians. They know that if they keep peddling this mendacious myth, they will continue to keep their base and continue to gain political points. It is manipulative and dishonest.

But a `states’ rights, un-cooperative federalism, Sagebrush Rebellion, and anti-environmental’ rhetoric certainly pays dividends at the polls, just ask Senator Mike Lee. Mike Lee represented Kane County in their legal battle over road closures and then ran on getting public lands back, and as a result, beat Senator Bennett. Now his natural resource adviser, Victor Iverson, is using the same tactics running for Washington County Commission. It is such a political lottery ticket that federal overreach was the primary theme at the Utah Republican Convention (6). Clearly there is a political incentive to continue these tactics, but let’s not suggest it benefits the citizens.

Mike Lee and Victor Iverson, Photo courtesy STGnews

While we can certainly question the constitutionality of laws and argue constitutional principles, it should not be aimed solely at the federal government. In light of the facts, it appears that not only do the states’ right activists not have the law, the facts, or the constitution on their side, they do not even have the foundational principles they lay claim to. It is time to turn a critical eye toward state and local politicians who are peddling lies, wasting money, and who amount to little more than used car salesmen pushing a sour deal. Their shenanigans are helping no one but themselves.

This is not to say that states should not keep the federal government in check, because they should.  But in doing so, their attempts should be justifiable, feasible, and reasonable. Furthermore, they should publicly note and acknowledge current law and legal standing in an act of good faith and honesty. They owe that not just to their constituencies, but to all citizens of all political persuasions who deserve to know the truth. That way the citizenry can be informed and possibly support the state when it deserves it. As of yet, all of the above mentioned seems to be lacking from the Sagebrush rebels’ battle with the federal government.

In the end, it may be time for the federal government to take a cue from such institutions as Utah’s SITLA and allow the market to set prices on land deals and uses. Allowing the market to work may be more equitable for all parties, and may even put money back into the pockets of tax payers via the discontinued use of subsidies. Who knows, maybe then our public lands will make a profit rather than continue to incur a deficit.

***May 10th a Utah county commissioner in Blanding, Phil Lyman, is going to illegally lead an OHV ride through Recapture Canyon in defiance of government overreach. http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/57890003-90/blm-canyon-ride-lyman.html.csp ****

Sources:

(1) Mendacious:

1. not telling the truth; lying.

“mendacious propaganda”

“politicians and their mendacious spin doctors”

2. Synonyms: lying, untruthful, dishonest, deceitful, false, dissembling, insincere, disingenuous, hypocritical, fraudulent, double-dealing, two-faced, two-timing, duplicitous, fictitious, falsified, fabricated, fallacious, invented.
3. Antonym: truthful

(2) Federal Land Ownership: http://www.law.umaryland.edu/marshall/crsreports/crsdocuments/RL34267_12032007.pdf

(3) School Land Trust: http://www.schoollandtrust.org/school-trust/school-lands/

(4) Governor Herbert got it wrong: http://suwa.typepad.com/blog/2011/03/governor-herbert-got-it-wrong-protecting-wilderness-helps-utah-school-children.html

(5) Land Exchange Distribution Account: http://le.utah.gov/lfa/reports/cobi2014/fundinfo/fund_1335.pdf

(6) Combatting federal overreach primary theme at Utah Republican Convention: http://www.stgeorgeutah.com/news/archive/2014/04/27/mgk-combatting-federal-overreach-primary-theme-utah-republican-convention/#.U2PSkld435c

(7) The Story of Kleppe v. New Mexico: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1454&context=facpub