Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) recently introduced legislation that would allow 12 western states to take five percent of public lands within their borders. The states would decide which lands to transfer.

Hatch argues that the laws that brought the western states into the union

required the federal government to sell five percent of the public land within the

new states so the states could allocate revenues from the land to education.

Congress is already rebelling at two far more modest Bush administration proposals to

dispose of public lands. One would sell small, excess tracts of national forest to

fund rural schools and one would sell BLM tracts to help reduce the

deficit.

Hatch’s bill mirrors one introduced by Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah) and 17 House

members(HR 3464)on March 26, 2005. No hearings have been held on HR 3464.

Both the Hatch and Bishop bills would authorize 12 states to obtain five

percent of federal land within their borders including: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington and Wyoming.

Utah already receives considerable public land revenue each year including almost $69 million in mineral royalties and just over $19 million from payments-in-lieu of taxes in 2004.

Selling assets to pay for operating expenses is extremely short-sighted and is akin to selling your house to pay your utility bill.

Dear [ Decision Maker ] ,

I am writing to express my opposition to Senate Bill 2569. Public lands belong to all Americans. They should not be sold off to pay for education expenses in western states that have underfunded education for their citizens for decades.

It is also bad financial policy to sell assets to pay expenses. What this bill proposes is akin to selling your house to pay your utility bill -- it's just plain silly. What will you do when the assets have been sold and the expenses keep coming in?

Sincerely,

Campaign Launched:
April 27, 2006