By DJ Summers, Alaska Journal of Commerce
Doug Heaton, executive director of the American Lands Council, says
he has a plan for Alaska to take control of federally owned lands within
the state’s borders.
Speaking at the Jan. 9 Meet Alaska event, an annual gathering hosted
by the Alaska Support Industry Alliance, Heaton laid out a legal
argument for the passage of federal lands into state control and
implored the audience to do what several western Lower 48 states have
done and sign his petition.
The federal government controls more than 60 percent of Alaska land,
and Heaton’s argument says that land should’ve been given to the state
60 year ago after entry into the union.
Heaton’s case rests on an appeal to the Federal Property and
Territory Clause in Article IV, Section III of the U.S. Constitution,
giving the federal government the power to “dispose of and make all
needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property
belonging to the United States.”
Predictably, this passage has been the subject of lengthy debate and
has several dominant interpretations, ranging from pro-federal to
pro-state. Essentially, Heaton’ argues that “dispose of” means “get rid
of,” and that the U.S. government hasn’t lived up to the deal.
According to Heaton, when Alaska was admitted to the union as a state
in 1959, the enabling act mentioned no such transfer of public lands
into state hands, leaving the majority in Congressional control. By
contrast, Hawaii’s 1959 enabling act put public lands into state
ownership; Hawaii’s lands are now less than 1 percent federally
controlled.
Heaton cites historical cases for examples of successful public land
transfer in the past under similar circumstances. In 1828, Illinois,
Indiana, Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama, all
recently admitted states, petitioned the federal government for disposal
of public lands, and after some court battling, received them.
Historically and economically, Alaska has many commonalities with the
large western states in the Lower 48, including lengthy territorial
status, vast potentiality for natural resource development, and
expansive borders.
A wide disparity exists between eastern and western states in terms
of land management, where western refers to the Intermountain West,
Southwest, and Pacific Northwest states and eastern describes the Great
Plains and everything eastward. Where less than 10 percent of eastern
lands are federally controlled, over 50 percent of the western state
lands are under federal management.
In Heaton’s mind, the potential economic benefits to putting millions
of acres into state ownership far outweighs the benefits of the system
of national parks and federal natural resource leasing options under
large federal control.
Alaska is no stranger to legal scuffles over federally managed land.
Rep. Don Young has been a longtime opponent of federal control of Alaska
lands and vied several times to limit the authority of federal bodies
over state-owned property. Last year, two court decisions established
the National Parks Service’s supremacy over Alaska-controlled rivers
that run through federal lands.
Other groups like the Alaska Coalition actively lobby to add more
lands into Congressional control by adding acreage to federal wildlife
and resource reserves, arguing that protecting the Alaska natural
resources through national parks trumps private economic development.
The American Lands Council has its home in southern Utah, a state
that has been at the forefront of a battle to wrest public lands into
state domain for years.
DJ Summers can be reached at daniel.summers@alaskajournal.com.
Saturday, January 17, 2015
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I BELIEVE DOUG ALSO NEEDS TO CHECK OUT WHAT STATE LAND SUCH AS NATIONAL PARKS HAVE BEEN GIVEN TO THE U.N.??? WHERE THE UN TROOPS ARE HANGING OUT.....
Post a Comment