Federal lands discussion

On May 19, there was some heavy discussion regarding the pros and cons of different governmental entities being in charge of Wyoming’s lands. State Representative Nathan Winters spoke on transferring title of public lands from the federal government to state control at the Big Horn Federal Meeting Room. The Thermopolis Gun Club hosted the event.

Winters expressed gratitude for those who attended the presentation, as it is his intention to foster discussion on the topic, and what is needed is information.

Among the points raised during the discussion were the ease and difficulty of access to federal lands compared to state lands, budget issues should lands transfer to the state, handling of wildfires and responsibilities of ownership.

What evokes the imagery of Wyoming, as well as adjectives such as “wild” and “wonderful,” Winters said, are the open spaces that set it apart from the rest of the world. These lands set aside for multiple use, he noted, are part of Wyoming’s heritage.

Winters questioned whether people believed in the Constitution, and if they believed a government closest to the people is best.

“I think that is where the answer lies,” he said. “The whole system of government we have in the United States of America places power in the hands of the people. The problem is over time that power has been taken out of the hands of the people and placed in the hands of federal bureaucracies.” He stressed he believes there are good people working in such agencies, but there is a power structure that is not conducive to the types of freedoms people are supposed to inherit as Americans.

From a historical perspective, Winters said, the Constitution has limited provision for the federal government to own any land. Article I, he noted, states the federal government can have a district not exceeding 10 square miles to become the seat of government for the U.S. They can buy land for erection of forts, magazines, arsenals and other necessary buildings.

Outside of those lands mentioned in Article I, Article IV states Congress has power to dispose of and make needful rules regarding other property of the U.S. — the 10 square miles mentioned in Article I.

As to the amount of detail into what the federal government can and cannot own, Winters said he believes they knew the lands should be given to the states.

Winters further pointed out this is not the first time the federal control of lands has been questioned. In the 19th century, he said, the federal government controlled, for decades, as much as 90 percent of the then western states. This includes Michigan, Indiana, Iowa, Illinois, Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida.

The states “banded together and compelled Congress to transfer title to their lands,” Winters said. For almost 30 years, Senator Thomas Hart Benton worked for the transfer of those lands. “Benton’s tenacity secured those public lands.”

Congress eventually transferred title of those lands, which today have less than five percent federally controlled lands.

Contrasting that fact is the federal government owning 50 percent of the lands west of Kansas. Enabling acts both to the east and west, Winters said, contain virtually the same language referring transfer of title to public lands, but only western states remain heavily under federal control.

Winters noted the lands have done well under the federal government, but there have been some catastrophic wildfires, and there are trillions of dollars in minerals and energy resources locked up in these lands. Further, eastern states are paying billions to subsidize western states to manage their lands and resources.

Winters encouraged further discussion, beyond the evening’s presentation, on the possibilities land transfers would present.

“I believe if the State gains control of public lands, there are issues that we should study. I’m not saying that public lands owned by the State are managed perfectly . . . I believe that we need an honest discussion about our future.”