Utah is leading a battle over control of public lands, with New Mexico and other Western states caught in the crosshairs.

Utah's Republican officials want to sell off nearly 20 million acres and have enlisted 13 other states in a lawsuit headed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The lawsuit argues the federal government should not control Bureau of Land Management parcels within Utah's border, and per the Constitution can only own a state's military bases.

Jesse Deubel, executive director of the New Mexico Wildlife Federation, explained the importance of the case.

"The consequences of this are far more reaching than just the BLM, and it's also far more reaching than just the state of Utah," Deubel stressed. "This would affect public lands everywhere."

If the high court agrees with Utah's argument the federal government cannot hold public lands indefinitely, Deubel pointed out federal ownership of national parks, forests or wildlife refuges could be challenged.

Because the U.S. has 640 million acres of federally managed public lands, Deubel acknowledged it is no surprise some people want them privatized, which would keep the majority of people from enjoying them as recreational spaces.

"They're viewing it as being untapped wealth," Deubel contended. "I would argue that our federally managed public lands are actually owned by the people, and the BLM or the U.S. Forest Service, those are the management agencies that we've hired to manage the lands that we own."

He noted the Texas group, American Stewards of Liberty, which advocates for private property rights, is behind Utah's effort to overturn ownership of public lands.

"There's been part of a narrative that said that 'The state of Utah wants to get its land back from the federal government,'" Deubel observed. "The reality is, none of the BLM land that's in question here was ever owned by the state of Utah. It was federal land when Utah became a state, it's federal land today. There's nothing to take back."

Western states including Idaho, Alaska, Wyoming and Arizona have signed onto the lawsuit, along with Alabama, Arkansas, Iowa, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota and Texas.

A national land trust has purchased 44,000 acres of forest in Northwestern Maine to keep it wild and free for generations to come.

The Hilton Family Forest near Jackman contains mountain peaks, waterfalls and vital habitats for rare plant and animal species like the golden eagle. It is also a popular recreational area for hiking, biking and fishing.

Tom Duffus, vice president and northeast representative for The Conservation Fund, said the land will remain open to the public.

"We want to just keep things the same," Duffus explained. "What we've learned from this community so far is how important the stability of these landscapes is to them."

Duffus pointed out his organization purchased the land from the Hilton Family for $44 million and is now working with area communities on a permanent conservation solution.

Duffus stressed protecting the forest from subdivision or development contributes to the state's climate goals and improves climate and wildlife resilience. He added the land will also continue to provide revenue and jobs in the commercial sugaring, forest products and tourism industries.

"Working forests work for nature, they work for people," Duffus emphasized. "That is really the point of keeping all that going in a real sea change of land use that is happening in the forested landscapes around the country."

Maine is the most forested state in the nation and most of that forest is privately owned. Duffus noted there has been high turnover in land ownership since the 1990s, when paper companies began to sell their properties to timber investors. He added The Conservation Fund is helping to build a growing network of protected lands for the public good.

Advocates for public lands access are raising alarms about a lawsuit that could be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Utah has filed a suit arguing the U.S. Bureau of Land Management is holding about 18.5 million acres of land in the state unconstitutionally, saying it can't keep unappropriated land in perpetuity.

Idaho and twelve other states have joined the suit. They say federally controlled land should be transferred to states.

But Executive Director of the Idaho Wildlife Federation, Nick Fasciano, said that would be disastrous for public lands and the people who use them.

"State ownership of land at this scale is a direct path to privatization," said Fasciano. "State budgets do not have the capacity to manage lands at enormous scale like this without selling it off. Idaho has a constitutional mandate to maximize the financial return of the land under its management."

The U.S. Justice Department said Utah's claims are "without merit" in a brief filed with the Supreme Court.

The BLM manages nearly 12 million acres of land in Idaho.

Outdoor recreation has been increasing in Idaho, adding nearly $4 million to the economy in 2023.

Fasciano said hunters, anglers, and other recreationists fear privatization will mean they're cut off from access to public lands.

But he noted that when Congress tried to transfer public lands to states in 2017, there was an overwhelming response from the hunting community and the legislation was dropped.

"Hunters," said Fasciano, "we spend so much of our lives on public lands that we're very invested in these things continuing to be open and public, and prepared to get pretty loud in opposition to this sort of idea."

Fasciano said public input on how lands would be managed could be reduced if the state is in charge as well.

"The federal government has the ability to hold lands in perpetuity and has the financial capability to manage them," said Fasciano. "The state does not. And so, it's not a question of local versus federal management. It's a question of whether or not these are open and accessible to the public and available for habitat for wildlife or if they're not. And that's the big fear."




get more stories like this via email

Members of the Buffalo River Watershed Alliance are supporting two moratoriums on concentrated animal feeding operations to be voted on today by the Arkansas Administrative Rules subcommittee of the Arkansas Legislative Council.

Concentrated animal feeding operations are large agriculture facilities which keep animals confined in small spaces.

Gordon Watkins, president of the alliance, said Regulations 5 and 6 include a moratorium on swine Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations in the watershed, but Regulation 5 does not include adequate public notification requirements. He pointed out the regulation only requires a request for a permit be posted on the Department of Agriculture website.

"If someone wants to put a 10,000-animal hog-confinement facility next door to you, you'd probably like to know about that," Watkins contended. "Secondly, in order to oppose a permit -- legally -- it's a 30-day comment period, and unless you submit comments on it, you do not have standing to legally challenge a permit."

He acknowledged Regulation 6 has stronger notification requirements which include notifying nearby landowners, publishing the permit request in the local newspaper and contacting school superintendents within a 10-mile radius of the proposed facility.

The last concentrated animal feeding operation allowed near the Buffalo National River, C and H Swine, was shut down in 2019. Watkins added he is a farmer but feels the area needs to be protected.

"It's the first National River ever created in the country. It's also a state icon," Watkins stressed. "If you look at any of the literature, put out by the department of tourism to promote the state, you'll see images from the Buffalo National River. It's an economic engine to some of the poorest counties in the state."

It was discovered in 2018 the C and H swine operation contaminated the water quality in Big Creek and the Buffalo River. Today's meeting is scheduled for 2 p.m.


get more stories like this via email