Public Lands in Utah, Yes or No?

According to the Constitution of The State of Utah, Article III, Section 2:

“[Right to public domain disclaimed. Taxation of lands. Exemptions.] Second:--The people inhabiting this State do affirm and declare that they will forever disclaim all right and title to the unapropriated (sic) public lands lying within the boundaries hereof, 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. . .”

This Constitution was ratified in 1896, and Utah became a state. The Constitution of The State of Utah is the law of our land. Utah disclaimed all right and title to the unapropriated (sic) public lands.

So why, you might ask, did the (Utah) Commission for the Stewardship of Public Lands pay $640,000 to Davillier Law Firm of New Orleans to analyze the legality of suing the Federal Government to allow Utah to take over all the public lands? (Salt Lake Tribune, February 2, 2016) And why won’t the legal team give the complete report to all members of the Commission, which consists of five republicans and two democrats? (Part of this report has been made available to the member of the commission and the public, it only outlines the “positive” effects of this proposed lawsuit.) Neither of the Democrats (Senators Debakis and Briscoe) have been allowed to review the entire report. Why not? What is the legal team afraid of? A conflict of interest on behalf of the law firm, or the chairman, perhaps? Or, more telling, that the State of Utah would lose this battle in court?

The head of the Davillier legal team has said Davillier is protected by client-attorney privilege and can only release the information to the chairman of the Commission, David P. Hinkins, or to others upon approval of Chairman Hinkins. What is the chairman afraid of?

Hold on just a taxpayer-fleecing minute. The entire commission voted to hire the legal team, not just the chairman. The entire commission should be entitled to the complete report, as should the voters of Utah! To withhold this information is to deny the commission, and the voters of Utah, the information they need to make an informed decision. We, the taxpayers, of Utah, paid for this report, and I for one want to read it, in its entirety, without redactions.

I also want to know who is going to benefit from the takeover of public lands in Utah. Will it be land developers, the extraction industries, the cattlemen, or the hospitality industry? What about hunting, hiking, camping, fishing, and off road enthusiasts, or antiquities thieves?

Is this just one more ploy of the American Lands Council, headed by Utah state representative Ken Ivory, to fleece the Utah taxpayers; to deny our children and grandchildren the right to enjoy all the outdoor vistas and experiences that Utah offers?

I fear it is. Please feel free to post your comments or thoughts.

Thank you, Senator Debakis and Robert Gehkre of the Tribune, for making this issue public.

Retrieved February 2, 2016, from : http://www.archives.state.ut.us/research/exhibits/Statehood/1896text.htm

Sagebrush(Fire) Rebellion

KY       25,084               LA   17,883                  MA       879                        MD         182

One of the many reasons people in a given location come together and form a government is for protection; protection not only from outside attacks but also from predators within our society. This protection within society gives rise to the rule of law, and the regulators (armies, politicians, police, etc) that are rightfully expected to enforce the regulations. Of course, this protection that we rightfully expect our governments to provide comes at an expense, in the form of taxes. We also reasonably expect that expense (taxes) to be basically uniform across the adult population.
In the very recent past, some western politicians, seeking attention from a disgruntled public, have raised the idea of limiting federal government by taking federal lands, administered by the BLM, USFS, BIA, and other federal agencies, away from the national government and administering the lands by state control. While this may have some very short-term economic benefit to state governments, nothing could be in the worst interest of the citizens in particular and the various states economic condition in general.

Let’s examine a western-states specific item: Wildfires. These are generally fought with a combination of local, state and federal agencies. In 2013, there were 47,579 wildfires; the majority of those in the western states. The total area burned was 4.3 Million Acres! Sadly, that is not the worst of the news. The FEDERAL government spent a total of $1,740,934,000 (1.74 Billion, billion with a capital B dollars) in suppression (put out the fire) costs. As an average, that is $405 per acre. (Source: National Interagency Fire Center http://www.nifc.gov/fireInfo/fireInfo_documents/SuppCosts.pdf) 

This does NOT include the amount spent by any local or state agencies, nor does it include any remediation, property lost, or human costs. Forty-seven firefighters lost their lives in fire suppression efforts in the western United States in 2013. I thank them for their sacrifice; I have been on wildfire fire lines more times than I want to remember. If you have never been there, thank your lucky stars, but don’t discount those brave people in my presence. They are all volunteers for the duty; yes, they are paid for their efforts, but they are not forced to protect your property.
Here is the breakdown of wildfire acreage burned by state:

AK  1,316,876    AL   25,623     AR 14,733         AZ 105,281
CA     577,675    CO 195,145     CT      238         DE          17
FL         7,660     GA     6,736     HI           0        IA     14,704
ID      722,204     IL           55     IN        806        KS      7,137

ME            743    MI        940     MN  22,107      MO      1,660

MS              33    MT 124,209    NC   24,547      ND     16,116
NE               63    NH       137     NJ      1,430      NM   221,957
NV     162,907    NY   1,073      OH        152      OK      26,490
OR     350,786    PA    1,788      PR      4,716      RI               27
SC          7,082    SD     4,475     TN     7,080      TX        10,743
UT        70,282   VA     4,418     VT        281     WA      152,603
WI         8,577    WY  44,016

The states I have underlined are in one method or another asking/demanding the federal government relinquish control of federal lands to the states. So my question is, how will the states make up this additional expense to their budgets/and or cut other costs to cover the suppression costs? Here is the per-state cost. (All figures in this article are based on the 2013 wildfires, which was the third most costly in the last 20 years.)

Arizona will need another            $  42,638,805
Idaho will require another            $292,492,620
Montana will need another          $  50,304,645
New Mexico needs another        $  89,892,585
Nevada will require another        $  65,977,335
Texas will require another           $       424,035
Utah will need another                $  28,464,210
Wyoming needs another             $   17,826,480
Not so Grand of A Total!!         $ 588,020,715
(Breakdown by state source: (http://www.predictiveservices.nifc.gov/intelligence/2013_Statssumm/fires_acres13.pdf)) 

In plain English, the eight states that want to take state control of federal land will reduce the federal wildfire cost by 33.78%. That is a win-win for the feds (which these states dislike), a win-win for the states, but a lose-lose-lose-lose for the people living in those eight states. Yes, you the taxpayers will lose “4 ways from Sunday”, as mother used to say.

Here’s why:
The amount of federal taxes each of us pays is equal across the country: if you make X amount, you pay Y amount in taxes. The federal tax rate does not change if you have 1+ million acres on fire (Alaska) or only 27 (Rhode Island). Your federal taxes are NOT going down.( Feds win; people in the eight states lose.)
The drop of 33.78% in expenses on the federal level will allow the various federal agencies to increase the amount that is allocated to various branches, without a tax increase. (Feds win; people in the eight states lose.)

Your state taxes will increase to cover the costs of fighting wildfires, as all state governments are required to operate on a break-even or better basis. (States wins, people lose.)
If there are higher than predicted fire costs, your state tax rate will go up again to cover the expense; and once state rates go up, they don’t ever go back down. (States wins, people lose.)

That’s right, readers. In the case of wildfire control and costs in the budgets, if the states take control of the federally-administrated lands in each state, the feds win twice, the states win twice, and WE, the people, lose, four times.

And you want to vote these “State Control” politicians back into office? Against the better judgment of your own wallet?I don’t think so. Your comments and thoughts are all welcome! Agree with me, or disagree, let me know what you think!

Education vs Coal

My latest “Letter to the Editor” published in the Sale Lake Tribune March 3, 2012.

-SB31, which would have reduced class size in grades K-3 in our public schools, was killed in committee because, “It’s a good program, but it’s an unfunded mandate and in the future they’ll be back here asking us for money or there will be multitude of problems,” said Rep. Wayne Harper, R-West Jordan.
Well, here’s a possible solution: Fund the bill, using the money we will otherwise be throwing away to “take back” federal property in Utah. -

“This week, the Utah House passed a package of bills that demands that the federal government surrender ownership to the state of more than 30 million acres of federal land. If Congress fails to act on the demand, money has been set aside to initiate a lawsuit and permission granted to take other, undefined sovereign actions. The measures are intended to dismantle a national monument, free up trillions of dollars in oil, gas and coal reserves, and give the state authority to set conditions for the use of national parks.” (Salt lake Tribune, March 3, 2012) In a state strapped for cash, where is this money that has been “set aside” coming from? (My comment, not published)

Here’s some background information. Utah consists of, in round numbers, 54 million acres; more 30 million are owned by the United States Government, which pays no state property taxes. The most notable sections of US Government land are: Arches, Bryce, Canyonlands, Capital Reef and Zion National Parks (a total of 837,910 acres); National Forest properties including: Ashley, Cache, Dixie, Fishlake, Manti-La Sal, Sawtooth, Uinta, and Wasatch-Cache National Forests (a total of 8.2 million acres). Utah is home to Hill Air Force Base, Dugway Proving Ground, the Toole Army Depot, and Utah Test and Training Range, numerous government buildings (including an IRS complex); additionally the BLM administers 29.9 million acres which includes the Grand Staircase National Monument (1.9 million Acres). In my opinion, it is this 1.9 million acres in the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument that creates the largest heartache for Utah legislatures.

In September 1996, President Bill Clinton (not well-liked in Utah), citing the Antiquities Act, established the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument (as well as the Vermillion Cliffs National Monument, in Arizona) while visiting Grand Canyon National Park. The Utah congressional delegation and the Utah Governor were only given 24 hours advance notice of President Clinton’s plan. At the heart of the issue was a planned exploration of coal resources (The Andalex Coal Mine) which would have created jobs and business in an economically distressed part of Utah. Environmentalists were concerned that many sites of value would be destroyed by the mining operations. Additionally, there was concern that air pollution created by the mining operations would sacrifice air quality over the Arches, Bryce, Canyonlands and Zion National Parks. (Since 2000, numerous dinosaur fossils have been found in Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument; one a new species Gryposaurus monumentensis and two ceratopsid (horned) species. All of these were found in the area that would have been impacted by the proposed Andalex mine.)

The arguments from both sides are understandable to the thinking individual. Environmentalists are concerned about the damage created by a strip mining operation (such as Andalex proposed); the deterioration of air quality over our National Parks, and the collateral damage of heavy equipment rolling over roads not designed for such use. The Andalex plan had not discussed recovery of the land after mining, the disposition of overburden, or the damage to roads. Neither the state or the proposed mine had put into place any plans for infrastructure improvements, such as housing, schools, water and waste facilities, or noise and pollution abatements. Having lived and worked in a “boom town” environment (Rock Springs, Wyoming); and having studied and seen firsthand the damage done to “boom town” areas, I do understand the concerns raised by the environmental side.

I also understand the economic issues. My family has visited these areas many times, and I have worked with utilities in the area. The promise of good-paying jobs, the lure of new businesses, new opportunities, and increased property values, does have a high luster to people in the area. The proposed Andalex mine would definitely create a great, fast wealth for the communities in the area. Additional oil and gas exploration in the areas would only expand the growth, and the potential revenues, from both personal and taxation-value positions. Certainly, there are arguments on both sides that need to be discussed. Definitely, the mineral resources on the Kaiparowits Plateau should be open for discussion. Without a doubt, there are items of antiquity on the plateau that should be preserved. But, these need to be items of discussion, learned discourse, not unwinable lawsuits that only damage our State’s reputation and economic viability.

But here is the problem for this latest group of “bills” from the Utah Legislature: The U.S. Constitution, the Utah State Constitution, and the Utah State Enabling Act -all three- forbid the state from seeking control of federal lands and all three protect the right of the federal government to hold land it has claimed. If these bills pass the Utah Senate, the State of Utah (that’s you and I, fellow tax-payers of Utah) will pay to defend these message bills until they are thrown out by at least two courts of proper jurisdiction. Additionally, the United States Government will spend money (That’s you and I, fellow tax-payers of the United States), to defeat Utah’s claim. The legal advice to the Utah House and Senate said, in so many words, don’t do this. We are wasting money, money that should be spent on education. This is very short-sighted, irresponsible, and ridiculous legislation. If our state legislature wants to open a discussion about these issues with “Washington,” by all means do so, in a proper manner, through open, proper channels. Don’t waste our limited financial resources on lawsuits Utah will ineveitably lose.

This has the appearance of ”bought and paid for” legislation. Big money interests, namely coal and oil developers, would love to have these areas open to exploration. Our legislature is bowing down to the money, the greed of these developers. They are doing so without regard to the potential impact on the environment, to the children and grandchildren of those people living in the area, and without regard to long-stand federal laws. In doing this, they are making a desperate, sad plea for the coal and oil developers to keep money coming into their campaign funds, perhaps into their own pockets. It’s wrong, in my opinion, and it will cost the taxpayers of Utah dearly over the next several years. The money we will waste would be put to much better use if funneled into education, such as reducing class size.

Your comments and opinions are welcome, as always.

ARZM..do you know what it means?

An article in the Salt Lake Tribune (Sunday December 12, 2010) is of great interest, not only to people in Utah, but also those in South Dakota, Wyoming, and Texas; with a much broader ripple effect to the United States security and that of it’s allies. A Canadian company, Uranium One, holds title to 10,000 acres of uranium claims in those states; and in Utah that includes a town (Ticaboo), the Shootaring Canyon mine and uranium mill. While the mill is not in operation at this time, the exploration for uranium has been ongoing, and the mill is kept in a state of readiness until the price of U3O8 increases to approximately $7.50 per pound, (as of December 14, 2010 $6.80 and rising) at which time it becomes economically feasible to re-start the mill, which employees a “crushing and leaching’ method of extraction, where the raw material is mined in conventional fashion and then leached on the surface, as described below.

In Wyoming, their projects include the Willow Creek, Moore Ranch, JAB and Antelope projects. These projects ship “Loaded Resin” to Willow Creek for drying into U3O8 which is Triuranium octoxide, the base material, known commonly as “yellowcake”, for much of the world’s nuclear power plants. It can be converted to use a nuclear material for non-peaceful purposes. Uranium One’s projects and processing mills in Wyoming are in operation at this time. The properties in Texas and South Dakota are not in operation at this time, however, like their sister projects in Wyoming, these will be developed as “wells” into which a leaching solution is pumped, then the leach material and the Triuranium octoxide are pumped to the surface and processed into loaded resin and shipped for drying. This leaching process, known as ISL or in situ leaching, is a relatively “benign” process as far as current studies report. Unlike less developed nations (Kazakhstan) which use an acid as the leach material, the projects in the United States are limited to an alkaline leach, usually a mix of sodium bicarbonate and carbon dioxide. United States protocols demand test wells driven on the perimeter of the sites to monitor ground water affects from the ISL processes. If we make the presumption that the processes are as safe as U.S. government studies say they are, where is the concern?

The first concern is water supply to the mines and wells. In the western United States, water is a valuable commodity, and using it in leaching processes makes it unsuitable for consumption until properly treated, adding costs to the project. The second environmental concern is of the disposal of the overburden, or waste materials produced by conventional shaft mining, as well as “well mining”. The overburden material is radioactive, and a byproduct of the material is Radon Gas. The effects of “small amounts” of Radon Gas dispersed into the atmosphere are not currently known. In situ leaching does affect ground water, and according to Uranium One, the leaching material is maintained to a neutral value, much the value of common vinegar. Ground water monitoring “insures” the PH value of the leaching material.

So, again, what is the concern? Uranium One has been sold to a Russian mining company, Atomredmetzolo (ARZM), a wholly owned subsidiary of Rosatom, the Russian nuclear agency (similar in form to our NRC). Although four members of Congress petitioned the U.S. Treasury Department to disallow the sale of Uranium One’s assets to ARZM, Treasury has approved Uranium One’s planned sale to ARZM, as have the NRC and the Utah division of Radiation Control. The Utah DRC approval was based on “written documentation that there would be no changes in the operations.” This email –yes email- documentation said, and I quote, “ decisions with regard to the day-to-day operations of the Shootaring Mill will be made by the management of Uranium One Exploration U.S.A. Inc., in coordination with Scott Schierman as the Corporate Radiation Safety Officer for the Shootaring Canyon Mill…”

The problem is with the ultimate parent “company”, which is the Russian nuclear agency, Rosatom, which has been accused, and never cleared, of selling nuclear material (yellowcake) to Iran for its’ nuclear program.

So, we have put one of our national resources, uranium, up for sale to the Russian government, who can use the product for whatever it likes, including selling yellowcake to nations that are working not in the best interests of the United Sates. In the process, we are diverting a scarce national resource, water, into the manufacture of products that could, conceivably, be used against us in warfare.

There is something wrong with this picture!