Dear editor:
Wyoming was guaranteed entry into the Union on equal footing with the other states 134 years ago.
However, entering the Union for Wyoming came with the caveat that nearly 50% of the land within the state boundaries would remain under the jurisdiction of the federal government, notwithstanding a lack of constitutional authority to require such.
That land is mainly in what we now call the Bureau of Land Management and the United States Forest Service.
The enumerated powers clause in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 specifically defines the only authority over lands in which the federal government has jurisdiction.
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;
Clause 17 speaks to what we now know as Washington D.C., military bases throughout the United States, and federal buildings scattered throughout the states to do the work of the federal government “To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever,”.
However, no constitutional jurisdiction over what we know as ‘public lands’ was ever given. The enabling act which required Wyoming and other states to forfeit their rights to the public lands was clearly without constitutional authority and was unquestionably a coercive action on Wyoming’s founders who were thirsting for statehood.
Wyomingites were unaware of the eventual consequences of yielding to this gross takeover of a new states’ rights. Thirty million acres was a lot of land for a new state to manage, therefore agreeing to the enabling act was seen as an acceptable condition for statehood.
After all, similar requirements for statehood among other western states was seen as the norm. Today approximately one third of the United States land mass is controlled unconstitutionally by the federal government.
Karen Budd-Falen, a Wyoming land attorney, recently stated concerning the Supreme Court lawsuit originating from Utah over the question of jurisdiction over the public lands, “it’s an uphill climb for Utah, as the federal government will ask why the state waited a century to wage this battle.”
I believe the answer to that question is that in the beginning the relationship between the federal government and Utah and the other western states was mostly benign with the exception of some grazing and water use issues.
A serious adversarial relationship didn’t really develop until the federal government passed the Wilderness Act in 1964, wherein they removed multiple use on millions of acres from the states. From there till now it has been a concerted effort to remove all public lands from multiple use.
Now we have the ‘Green New Deal’ and its war on fossil fuels that threatens the very foundation of the economies of several states along with disastrous consequences for the United States as a whole. The political environment has left the western states with no option other than to fight. The old axiom, ‘never kick a sleeping dog’ could never be more apropos.
The question as to whether Wyoming should join the lawsuit was also addressed by Karen Budd-Falen. “One reason Wyoming may not be joining Utah’s lawsuit is because of a decade-old feasibility study showing that managing what are now BLM lands would be expensive — if the state were to gain control of them.”
Apparently, Ms. Falen has never considered that if jurisdiction were returned to the states all federal royalties would come with it.
Currently the federal government takes 52% of all royalties collected from multiple use of the state's resources.
That figure is in the millions of dollars each year; plenty of money to manage the land and catastrophic events like wildfires.
She further opined that states like California and Oregon “If they had control of those lands, I can tell you, there would not be ranching, oil and gas; minerals.” I wonder if she has considered the direction the federal government is taking multiple land use currently. In Wyoming all fossil fuel activity, along with ranching and other uses will cease if we stay on our current path.
Wyoming and the other states have a historic opportunity to correct over a hundred years of unconstitutional usurpation of our public lands.
However, I can assure you if Wyoming joins Utah in its lawsuit, it will not be because of our ‘Green New Deal’ governor who said, “his office may study ways to support Utah’s effort.”
In other words, he has no intention of Wyoming joining Utah in this historic fight!
If Wyoming is to join the fight, it will have to be because the freedom fighters in the new ‘more conservative’ Wyoming legislature force Mark Gordon to take action.
An historic opportunity with a conservative Supreme Court is in front of us. Don’t miss this opportunity Wyoming!
Sincerely,
Rex Rammell
Rock Springs, Wyoming
