The document discusses how Nevada joined the Union in 1864 with the promise that it would be on equal footing with the original states. However, over 85% of Nevada's land is controlled by the federal government, limiting the state's ability to generate tax revenue. When states like Nevada joined the Union, there was an implied agreement that the federal government would sell off unappropriated lands to private owners within a reasonable time frame. However, the federal government failed to do this, breaking the compact made at statehood and crippling Nevada's sovereignty.
The state that successfully compelled the transfer of its public lands using these arguments was Nevada. In the late 19th century, Nevada argued for the transfer of federal lands within its borders using reasoning around state sovereignty, unfair restrictions on revenue generation and management compared to eastern states, health and welfare of its citizens, and fulfillment of the terms of its statehood enabling act - ultimately resulting in the transfer of public lands to Nevada's control.
The document discusses the history of federal control over public lands within states and arguments for transferring those lands to state control. It notes that when new states were admitted to the union, compacts were created to transfer federal public lands within the new states equally to the states. However, vast amounts of land remained under long-term federal control in western states like Oregon. The document argues that this unequal treatment of western states violates the terms of statehood and harms state sovereignty, revenues, and ability to manage resources and growth. It advocates for the transfer of federal public lands to state control on equal terms as the original states and early western states like Illinois that successfully compelled such land transfers.
The document is a report from the Nevada Land Management Task Force to the Nevada Interim Legislative Committee on Public Lands regarding the potential congressional transfer of public lands in Nevada to state ownership. The summary includes:
1) The task force recommends the Nevada Legislature request legislation to transfer ownership of certain federal lands in Nevada to the state in phases, excluding certain protected areas.
2) An initial phase would include over 7.2 million acres of Bureau of Land Management land meeting certain criteria like being suitable for disposal.
3) Subsequent phases could include additional BLM land, U.S. Forest Service land, and Bureau of Reclamation surplus land, upon request from local governments or the state legislature within 10 years.
This document discusses the unequal treatment of Western states compared to Eastern states with regards to federally controlled public lands. It notes that while Eastern states had sovereignty over their lands from the beginning, Western states had over 90% of their lands controlled by the federal government indefinitely. It highlights the arguments made by Illinois Representative Orlando Ficklin in 1848 for a bill to cede public lands to the states, including that all states must have equal sovereignty and rights to develop their resources. It also discusses how Senator Thomas Hart Benton of Missouri relentlessly advocated for reforming the system to transfer more control of public lands to the states.
The document contains tables summarizing revenue, expenses, and employment statistics for public land management in several Western states, including Nevada, and for the Bureau of Land Management nationwide from 2008-2012. It shows that on average, revenue from public lands was highest in New Mexico at $59.25 per acre, while expenses were highest in Idaho at $8.60 per acre. On average, net revenue per acre ranged from $16.60 in Idaho to $57.78 in New Mexico. For BLM nationwide, total revenue averaged $559,317 per FTE while expenses averaged $212,088 and net revenue $347,229 per FTE over the 5-year period.
Intertech Complete Public Land Management Task Force Report Tables American Lands Council
This document contains tables summarizing public land management revenues, expenditures, employment and output for the states of Arizona, Idaho, New Mexico, and Utah over a five year period from FY2008 to FY2012. The tables provide details on total acres managed, revenues and expenditures by source (e.g. grazing, agriculture, oil/gas leases), number of leases, revenue and expenditures per acre, and distribution of revenues to state beneficiaries for each state.
This document outlines a pledge for political candidates to commit to securing full statehood equality for western states in terms of public land management. It argues that federal management of public lands in the west is failing to ensure healthy forests, wildlife, communities, and recreation. A legal analysis found that western states are entitled to the same rights over public lands as eastern states. Turning ordinary federal lands over to state control through the #FreeTheLands movement would make land management more efficient and protect access to recreation, while respecting valid existing rights. The goal is fundamental fairness and equality for western states in determining the future of their own public lands.
The state that successfully compelled the transfer of its public lands using these arguments was Nevada. In the late 19th century, Nevada argued for the transfer of federal lands within its borders using reasoning around state sovereignty, unfair restrictions on revenue generation and management compared to eastern states, health and welfare of its citizens, and fulfillment of the terms of its statehood enabling act - ultimately resulting in the transfer of public lands to Nevada's control.
The document discusses the history of federal control over public lands within states and arguments for transferring those lands to state control. It notes that when new states were admitted to the union, compacts were created to transfer federal public lands within the new states equally to the states. However, vast amounts of land remained under long-term federal control in western states like Oregon. The document argues that this unequal treatment of western states violates the terms of statehood and harms state sovereignty, revenues, and ability to manage resources and growth. It advocates for the transfer of federal public lands to state control on equal terms as the original states and early western states like Illinois that successfully compelled such land transfers.
The document is a report from the Nevada Land Management Task Force to the Nevada Interim Legislative Committee on Public Lands regarding the potential congressional transfer of public lands in Nevada to state ownership. The summary includes:
1) The task force recommends the Nevada Legislature request legislation to transfer ownership of certain federal lands in Nevada to the state in phases, excluding certain protected areas.
2) An initial phase would include over 7.2 million acres of Bureau of Land Management land meeting certain criteria like being suitable for disposal.
3) Subsequent phases could include additional BLM land, U.S. Forest Service land, and Bureau of Reclamation surplus land, upon request from local governments or the state legislature within 10 years.
This document discusses the unequal treatment of Western states compared to Eastern states with regards to federally controlled public lands. It notes that while Eastern states had sovereignty over their lands from the beginning, Western states had over 90% of their lands controlled by the federal government indefinitely. It highlights the arguments made by Illinois Representative Orlando Ficklin in 1848 for a bill to cede public lands to the states, including that all states must have equal sovereignty and rights to develop their resources. It also discusses how Senator Thomas Hart Benton of Missouri relentlessly advocated for reforming the system to transfer more control of public lands to the states.
The document contains tables summarizing revenue, expenses, and employment statistics for public land management in several Western states, including Nevada, and for the Bureau of Land Management nationwide from 2008-2012. It shows that on average, revenue from public lands was highest in New Mexico at $59.25 per acre, while expenses were highest in Idaho at $8.60 per acre. On average, net revenue per acre ranged from $16.60 in Idaho to $57.78 in New Mexico. For BLM nationwide, total revenue averaged $559,317 per FTE while expenses averaged $212,088 and net revenue $347,229 per FTE over the 5-year period.
Intertech Complete Public Land Management Task Force Report Tables American Lands Council
This document contains tables summarizing public land management revenues, expenditures, employment and output for the states of Arizona, Idaho, New Mexico, and Utah over a five year period from FY2008 to FY2012. The tables provide details on total acres managed, revenues and expenditures by source (e.g. grazing, agriculture, oil/gas leases), number of leases, revenue and expenditures per acre, and distribution of revenues to state beneficiaries for each state.
This document outlines a pledge for political candidates to commit to securing full statehood equality for western states in terms of public land management. It argues that federal management of public lands in the west is failing to ensure healthy forests, wildlife, communities, and recreation. A legal analysis found that western states are entitled to the same rights over public lands as eastern states. Turning ordinary federal lands over to state control through the #FreeTheLands movement would make land management more efficient and protect access to recreation, while respecting valid existing rights. The goal is fundamental fairness and equality for western states in determining the future of their own public lands.
The document advocates for the transfer of federal public lands in western states to state control. It argues that federal control of over 50% of lands in western states has led to dysfunctional management resulting in catastrophic wildfires, restricted access to natural resources, and economic hardship for western communities that are dependent on federal subsidies. The document proposes that transferring public lands to state control would lead to better stewardship, economic opportunity, and independence for western states in managing the lands and resources within their own boundaries, in line with their statehood rights.
The document discusses Utah's Transfer of Public Lands Act, which calls on the federal government to transfer ownership of most federal lands in Utah back to the state. It provides background on land ownership in Utah, noting that the federal government owns about two-thirds of the state's land. It then makes the case that the Transfer Act is constitutional and consistent with the original intent of Utah's founding, when the federal government was expected to eventually dispose of public lands. It argues that interpreting Utah's Enabling Act and the U.S. Constitution in their original contexts supports the validity of the Transfer Act.
This document provides information about Senator Jennifer Fielder and Senate Joint Resolution 15 (SJ-15), which conducted a legislative study of federal land management in Montana. Some key points:
- Senator Fielder is from Montana and chairs SJ-15, which had strong bipartisan support.
- SJ-15 found that federal lands make up over 27 million acres in Montana and that federal funding and management of these lands is inadequate, jeopardizing environmental, economic, and social factors.
- A county survey conducted for SJ-15 showed widespread concerns about issues like wildfires, access restrictions, and payments to counties being too low to make up for non-taxable federal lands.
This document discusses the argument for transferring public lands from federal to state control in western states. It argues that federal control of over 50% of western lands has led to dysfunctional management resulting in catastrophic wildfires, restricted access to resources, and economic hardship for western communities. The document advocates for transferring control of public lands, except for national parks and designated wilderness areas, to willing western states. It cites evidence that states generate greater economic returns from land management compared to the federal government. The goal of the transfer is to improve access, environmental health, and economic productivity through more responsive local stewardship of public lands by the states.
The American Lands Council is a non-profit organization formed in 2012 with a mission to transfer federal public lands to local control. They are seeking an Office Manager to work full-time out of their South Jordan, Utah office. Responsibilities include managing finances, scheduling events, processing paperwork, overseeing the website, and assisting with operations. Qualified candidates should have skills in Microsoft Office, QuickBooks, communication, and working independently. Experience with public lands issues, education materials, and overseeing employees is preferred.
The resolution supports studying the transfer of federal lands in Mineral County, Montana to state control. It notes that 82% of the county's land is federally managed, and federal management has broken promises of sustained yield practices, multiple use, and payment in lieu of taxes. As a result, the county has become impoverished. Further, the federal government has allowed dangerous fuel loads to accumulate, threatening communities and increasing wildfire risks. In contrast, state-managed lands in Montana are said to be managed responsibly and profitably.
St. George, UT Chamber of Commerce Letters in Support of the TransferAmerican Lands Council
The St. George Chamber of Commerce wrote to several Utah representatives and senators thanking them for their past support of transferring federal public land management to the state. They request continued help passing legislation for this. A recent report found that revenue from public lands could cover current management costs if transferred. The letter argues state management would improve economies, education, and communities compared to the federal government.
Lincoln County in Montana has faced declining revenue from federal lands over the past two decades, leaving its fiscal condition delicate. Revenue to the county from the US Forest Service's 25% Fund, based on economic activity in the Kootenai National Forest, has fallen from $4.5 million in 1994 to around $330,000 annually since 2008. This has forced large cuts to the county road budget and use of cash reserves. The county's dire fiscal situation is closely tied to unresponsive federal forest management policies that have turned the forest from an economic asset into a liability.
If you would like to have an ALC Representative attend your event please complete this form. Submission instructions can be found on the bottom of the form.
This document contains tables summarizing land management revenues, expenditures, employment, and output for Utah and several other states over a five year period from 2008-2012. It also contains tables projecting potential revenues, expenditures, employment if Nevada were to expand its state land management program based on averages from Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, and Idaho models. Revenues come from sources like surface management, oil and gas leasing, timber, and land sales. Expenditures covered operating and capital costs. Projections for Nevada estimated revenues of $248-592 million, expenditures of $18-86 million, and 165-1070 jobs depending on the state model used.
This document contains tables summarizing land management revenues, expenditures, employment, and output for New Mexico and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) nationwide from fiscal years 2008 to 2012. Key figures for New Mexico include total annual revenues ranging from $420 million to $652 million, expenditures from $13 million to $13 million, and net revenues from $407 million to $639 million. For the BLM nationwide, total annual revenues ranged from $4.1 billion to $5 billion, expenditures from $1.7 billion to $2.4 billion, and net revenues from $2 billion to $2.6 billion.
This document contains tables summarizing land management revenues, expenses, employment and output for Idaho and several other states over a five year period from 2008-2012. It also contains tables comparing these metrics across multiple states and estimating potential revenues, expenses and employment if Nevada were to manage additional public lands using models from other states. Revenues come from activities like grazing, agriculture/residential leases, timber, minerals and more.
This document contains tables summarizing public land management revenues, expenditures, employment and output for various states and for the Bureau of Land Management nationwide over a five year period from 2008-2012. Key figures reported include total revenues, expenses, net revenue, acres managed, revenue and expenses per acre, full time employees and revenue/expense per FTE. The data shows variation between states and years in these metrics.
This document provides a summary and analysis of a study examining the potential impacts of transferring federal public lands in Utah to state ownership. Some key findings of the study include:
1) Revenues from activities on BLM and Forest Service lands averaged $317.6 million and $7.9 million annually, respectively, while management costs averaged $118.6 million for BLM lands and $93.9 million for Forest Service lands.
2) Wildfire suppression costs averaged $33.4 million annually over the past decade, with federal spending averaging $27.6 million and state spending $5.8 million.
3) Revenue sharing programs like PILT and SRS provided around $46 million to local
The document advocates for the transfer of federal public lands in western states to state control. It argues that federal control of over 50% of lands in western states has led to dysfunctional management resulting in catastrophic wildfires, restricted access to natural resources, and economic hardship for western communities that are dependent on federal subsidies. The document proposes that transferring public lands to state control would lead to better stewardship, economic opportunity, and independence for western states in managing the lands and resources within their own boundaries, in line with their statehood rights.
The document discusses Utah's Transfer of Public Lands Act, which calls on the federal government to transfer ownership of most federal lands in Utah back to the state. It provides background on land ownership in Utah, noting that the federal government owns about two-thirds of the state's land. It then makes the case that the Transfer Act is constitutional and consistent with the original intent of Utah's founding, when the federal government was expected to eventually dispose of public lands. It argues that interpreting Utah's Enabling Act and the U.S. Constitution in their original contexts supports the validity of the Transfer Act.
This document provides information about Senator Jennifer Fielder and Senate Joint Resolution 15 (SJ-15), which conducted a legislative study of federal land management in Montana. Some key points:
- Senator Fielder is from Montana and chairs SJ-15, which had strong bipartisan support.
- SJ-15 found that federal lands make up over 27 million acres in Montana and that federal funding and management of these lands is inadequate, jeopardizing environmental, economic, and social factors.
- A county survey conducted for SJ-15 showed widespread concerns about issues like wildfires, access restrictions, and payments to counties being too low to make up for non-taxable federal lands.
This document discusses the argument for transferring public lands from federal to state control in western states. It argues that federal control of over 50% of western lands has led to dysfunctional management resulting in catastrophic wildfires, restricted access to resources, and economic hardship for western communities. The document advocates for transferring control of public lands, except for national parks and designated wilderness areas, to willing western states. It cites evidence that states generate greater economic returns from land management compared to the federal government. The goal of the transfer is to improve access, environmental health, and economic productivity through more responsive local stewardship of public lands by the states.
The American Lands Council is a non-profit organization formed in 2012 with a mission to transfer federal public lands to local control. They are seeking an Office Manager to work full-time out of their South Jordan, Utah office. Responsibilities include managing finances, scheduling events, processing paperwork, overseeing the website, and assisting with operations. Qualified candidates should have skills in Microsoft Office, QuickBooks, communication, and working independently. Experience with public lands issues, education materials, and overseeing employees is preferred.
The resolution supports studying the transfer of federal lands in Mineral County, Montana to state control. It notes that 82% of the county's land is federally managed, and federal management has broken promises of sustained yield practices, multiple use, and payment in lieu of taxes. As a result, the county has become impoverished. Further, the federal government has allowed dangerous fuel loads to accumulate, threatening communities and increasing wildfire risks. In contrast, state-managed lands in Montana are said to be managed responsibly and profitably.
St. George, UT Chamber of Commerce Letters in Support of the TransferAmerican Lands Council
The St. George Chamber of Commerce wrote to several Utah representatives and senators thanking them for their past support of transferring federal public land management to the state. They request continued help passing legislation for this. A recent report found that revenue from public lands could cover current management costs if transferred. The letter argues state management would improve economies, education, and communities compared to the federal government.
Lincoln County in Montana has faced declining revenue from federal lands over the past two decades, leaving its fiscal condition delicate. Revenue to the county from the US Forest Service's 25% Fund, based on economic activity in the Kootenai National Forest, has fallen from $4.5 million in 1994 to around $330,000 annually since 2008. This has forced large cuts to the county road budget and use of cash reserves. The county's dire fiscal situation is closely tied to unresponsive federal forest management policies that have turned the forest from an economic asset into a liability.
If you would like to have an ALC Representative attend your event please complete this form. Submission instructions can be found on the bottom of the form.
This document contains tables summarizing land management revenues, expenditures, employment, and output for Utah and several other states over a five year period from 2008-2012. It also contains tables projecting potential revenues, expenditures, employment if Nevada were to expand its state land management program based on averages from Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, and Idaho models. Revenues come from sources like surface management, oil and gas leasing, timber, and land sales. Expenditures covered operating and capital costs. Projections for Nevada estimated revenues of $248-592 million, expenditures of $18-86 million, and 165-1070 jobs depending on the state model used.
This document contains tables summarizing land management revenues, expenditures, employment, and output for New Mexico and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) nationwide from fiscal years 2008 to 2012. Key figures for New Mexico include total annual revenues ranging from $420 million to $652 million, expenditures from $13 million to $13 million, and net revenues from $407 million to $639 million. For the BLM nationwide, total annual revenues ranged from $4.1 billion to $5 billion, expenditures from $1.7 billion to $2.4 billion, and net revenues from $2 billion to $2.6 billion.
This document contains tables summarizing land management revenues, expenses, employment and output for Idaho and several other states over a five year period from 2008-2012. It also contains tables comparing these metrics across multiple states and estimating potential revenues, expenses and employment if Nevada were to manage additional public lands using models from other states. Revenues come from activities like grazing, agriculture/residential leases, timber, minerals and more.
This document contains tables summarizing public land management revenues, expenditures, employment and output for various states and for the Bureau of Land Management nationwide over a five year period from 2008-2012. Key figures reported include total revenues, expenses, net revenue, acres managed, revenue and expenses per acre, full time employees and revenue/expense per FTE. The data shows variation between states and years in these metrics.
This document provides a summary and analysis of a study examining the potential impacts of transferring federal public lands in Utah to state ownership. Some key findings of the study include:
1) Revenues from activities on BLM and Forest Service lands averaged $317.6 million and $7.9 million annually, respectively, while management costs averaged $118.6 million for BLM lands and $93.9 million for Forest Service lands.
2) Wildfire suppression costs averaged $33.4 million annually over the past decade, with federal spending averaging $27.6 million and state spending $5.8 million.
3) Revenue sharing programs like PILT and SRS provided around $46 million to local
Brand Guideline of Bashundhara A4 Paper - 2024khabri85
It outlines the basic identity elements such as symbol, logotype, colors, and typefaces. It provides examples of applying the identity to materials like letterhead, business cards, reports, folders, and websites.
Information and Communication Technology in EducationMJDuyan
(𝐓𝐋𝐄 𝟏𝟎𝟎) (𝐋𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐨𝐧 2)-𝐏𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐦𝐬
𝐄𝐱𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐈𝐂𝐓 𝐢𝐧 𝐞𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧:
Students will be able to explain the role and impact of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) in education. They will understand how ICT tools, such as computers, the internet, and educational software, enhance learning and teaching processes. By exploring various ICT applications, students will recognize how these technologies facilitate access to information, improve communication, support collaboration, and enable personalized learning experiences.
𝐃𝐢𝐬𝐜𝐮𝐬𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐬𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐜𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐞𝐭:
-Students will be able to discuss what constitutes reliable sources on the internet. They will learn to identify key characteristics of trustworthy information, such as credibility, accuracy, and authority. By examining different types of online sources, students will develop skills to evaluate the reliability of websites and content, ensuring they can distinguish between reputable information and misinformation.
Elevate Your Nonprofit's Online Presence_ A Guide to Effective SEO Strategies...TechSoup
Whether you're new to SEO or looking to refine your existing strategies, this webinar will provide you with actionable insights and practical tips to elevate your nonprofit's online presence.
How to Setup Default Value for a Field in Odoo 17Celine George
In Odoo, we can set a default value for a field during the creation of a record for a model. We have many methods in odoo for setting a default value to the field.
THE SACRIFICE HOW PRO-PALESTINE PROTESTS STUDENTS ARE SACRIFICING TO CHANGE T...indexPub
The recent surge in pro-Palestine student activism has prompted significant responses from universities, ranging from negotiations and divestment commitments to increased transparency about investments in companies supporting the war on Gaza. This activism has led to the cessation of student encampments but also highlighted the substantial sacrifices made by students, including academic disruptions and personal risks. The primary drivers of these protests are poor university administration, lack of transparency, and inadequate communication between officials and students. This study examines the profound emotional, psychological, and professional impacts on students engaged in pro-Palestine protests, focusing on Generation Z's (Gen-Z) activism dynamics. This paper explores the significant sacrifices made by these students and even the professors supporting the pro-Palestine movement, with a focus on recent global movements. Through an in-depth analysis of printed and electronic media, the study examines the impacts of these sacrifices on the academic and personal lives of those involved. The paper highlights examples from various universities, demonstrating student activism's long-term and short-term effects, including disciplinary actions, social backlash, and career implications. The researchers also explore the broader implications of student sacrifices. The findings reveal that these sacrifices are driven by a profound commitment to justice and human rights, and are influenced by the increasing availability of information, peer interactions, and personal convictions. The study also discusses the broader implications of this activism, comparing it to historical precedents and assessing its potential to influence policy and public opinion. The emotional and psychological toll on student activists is significant, but their sense of purpose and community support mitigates some of these challenges. However, the researchers call for acknowledging the broader Impact of these sacrifices on the future global movement of FreePalestine.
How to Download & Install Module From the Odoo App Store in Odoo 17Celine George
Custom modules offer the flexibility to extend Odoo's capabilities, address unique requirements, and optimize workflows to align seamlessly with your organization's processes. By leveraging custom modules, businesses can unlock greater efficiency, productivity, and innovation, empowering them to stay competitive in today's dynamic market landscape. In this tutorial, we'll guide you step by step on how to easily download and install modules from the Odoo App Store.
Broken Compact - The Hollowing-Out of Nevada Statehood
1. 9/9/13
Broken Compact | Nevada Journal
Home
About
|
|
Sign-up for updates
email address
Go
School board members
should be exempt from
ethics law, since
trustees serve 'the
children,' says CCSD
lawyer
Argument seeks to defend
district board president, top
lobbyist
Study: More Medicaid
eligibility = fewer
workers
Public health care subsidies
crowd out private insurance,
reduce jobseeking
Nevada clean-energy
entrepreneur faces
hostile bureaucracies,
subsidized competitors
More businessfriendly Texas
suggests he leave Nevada,
relocate there
Tip Line
TransparentNevada
|
Nevada Journal Archives
|
Contact Us
|
Search
Broken Compact
The Hollowing-Out of Nevada Statehood
BY STEVEN MILLER | WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 14, 2013 | 3 COMMENTS
Before Nevada joined the Union in 1864, the U.S. Congress explicitly promised more than two
dozen times that the new state would be on an equal footing with the original states.
That promise was not kept.
Take, for example, language on merely one page from the Congressional Globe — predecessor
of the modern Congressional Record — for March 3, 1864:
The motion [to take up the bill for the admission of Nevada into the Union]
was agreed to; and the bill (S. No. 524) to enable the people of Nevada to
form a constitution and State government, and for the admission of such
State into the Union on an equal footing with the original States, was
considered as in Committee of the Whole.
The inhabitants of that portion of the Territory of Nevada included in the
boundaries designated are by the bill authorized to form for themselves a
State government, which State, when formed, is to be admitted into the union
upon an equal footing with the original States in all respects
whatsoever…
In case a constitution and State government shall be formed for the people of
the Territory of Nevada … it shall be the duty of the President of the United
States to issue his proclamation declaring the State admitted into the Union
on an equal footing with the original States….
Send tips to
tips@nevadajournal.com
Yet today — almost 150 years later — the Silver State still limps along with its effective
sovereignty significantly crippled by a federal government that, even by its own count, controls
over 85 percent of the state’s surface.
Categories
Only 13 percent privately owned
Education (45)
Energy (27)
Federal Lands (2)
Fiscal (31)
Health Care (20)
Housing (17)
Nevada (40)
Transparency (30)
Video (22)
nevadajournal.com/2013/08/14/broken-compact/
One result is that only 13 percent of Nevada’s surface is available to provide the state with a tax
base for the funding of services. In some counties — such as Mineral, Nye and White Pine —
the tax base is virtually nonexistent, at 4 percent or less.
However, “taxing the soil” — as a committee of the U.S. House stated as far back as 1828 — is a
power “incident to all sovereign states.”
Moreover, as the committee report noted,
If these lands are to be withheld from sale, which is the effect of the present
system, in vain may the People of these States expect the advantages of well
settled neighborhoods, so essential to the education of youth, and to the
pleasures of social intercourse, and the advantages of religious instruction.
1/6
2. 9/9/13
Broken Compact | Nevada Journal
Those States will for many generations, without some change, be retarded in
endeavors to increase their comfort and wealth, by means of works of
internal improvements, because they have not the power, incident to all
sovereign States, of taxing the soil, to pay for the benefits conferred upon its
owner by roads and canals. (Emphasis added.)
Switch
Watchdog organizations
Tweets from a list by Nevada
Journal
IdahoReporter.com
@IdahoReporter
29m
New post: Professor Steve
Ackerman discusses the BLS
Employment Situation Summary
for August and chronic
unemployment
idahoreporter.com/?p=32215
Wisconsin Reporter
@wisconsinreport
The covenant that Congress broke
Expand
43m
Former #Kansas budget director
blasts media for "selective
reporting" - goo.gl/QXBcQb
#Ksleg
Watchdog News
@Watchdogorg
The U.S. Supreme Court has never directly addressed that question, noted the State of Utah
last year. But for the federal government to never follow through after 1864 and sell the
unappropriated Nevada lands — or if unsellable, simply give them to the new state — was a
clear violation of the terms under which the Silver State had agreed to enter the union.
36m
New From WR: Watch for
‘bleedout’ at Smithfield Foods
after China takeover, expert says
ow.ly/2zLc9S
Kansas Watchdog
@KansasWatchdog
Beyond the issue of merely bad policy, however, is the question of whether the federal
government has seriously breached the law — not only visàvis Nevada, but visàvis virtually
all the Western states.
51m
NJ's "disabled" double-dippers get
one check for working and another
because they cannot work:
ow.ly/oHbAI
Steven Miller
Managing Editor
Karen Gray
Reporter/Researcher
As the 1828 House committee report noted, those terms were part of an implicit contract
between the states and the federal government:
When these States stipulated not to tax the lands of the United States until
they were sold, they rested upon the implied engagement of Congress to
cause them to be sold, within a reasonable time. No just equivalent has been
given those States for a surrender of an attribute of sovereignty so
important to their welfare, and to an equal standing with the original
States. (Emphasis added.)
President Andrew Jackson, five years later, would make a similar point. In a veto message to
the Congress, he reviewed the history of America’s enabling acts and wrote, “It can not be
supposed the compacts intended that the United States should retain forever a title to lands
within the States….”
Thus, at the time of Nevada’s entry into the Union, the enabling acts were recognized as, in
essence, terms being offered by Congress to the people of the territories: If they would organize
themselves into representatively republican assemblies and meet other conditions Congress set
forth in the enabling acts, the federal government would sell or otherwise dispose of the
unappropriated lands within the new states’ borders, opening those lands up to settlement and
commerce. Additionally, to get the new states up and running, the federal government would
share with them some of those landsale revenues.
Of course, for the federal government to be able to sell those lands, title on them had to be
clear. No market existed for encumbered properties with clouded titles.
This gets to the reason why one of the conditions set by Nevada’s Enabling Act was a
requirement that the territorial constitutional convention include in its draft constitution the
nowinfamous disclaimer clause.
That clause — which has long confused readers unaware of its full historical context — states:
That the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare that they
forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying
within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and
entire disposition of the United States …
Counter to the impression that many Nevadans still have, Congress did not require this
provision in order to forever lock the Silver State’s unappropriated public lands away from its
citizens and into permanent federal ownership.
Every state had a disclaimer clause
Proof of this is the fact that virtually all American enabling acts have such disclaimer clauses,
going all the way back to the Northwest Ordinance of 1787.
Consider Section 14, Article 4 of that watershed document:
... The legislatures of those districts or new States, shall never interfere with
nevadajournal.com/2013/08/14/broken-compact/
2/6
3. 9/9/13
Broken Compact | Nevada Journal
the primary disposal of the soil by the United States in Congress assembled,
nor with any regulations Congress may find necessary for securing the title in
such soil to the bona fide purchasers. No tax shall be imposed on lands the
property of the United States; and, in no case, shall nonresident proprietors
be taxed higher than residents. (Emphasis added.)
Or, consider Alabama’s enabling act, passed in 1819, a full generation before Nevada’s:
… And… that the said convention shall provide, by an ordinance irrevocable
without the consent of the United States, that the people inhabiting the said
territory, do agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to
the waste or unappropriated lands lying within the said territory; and that
the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United
States …
The State of Nebraska’s enabling act is also revealing, because its disclaimer language is
identical to Nevada’s. However, only 1 percent of the surface of that state — according to the
American Lands Council — is today in the hands of the federal government.
Read more at "How Nebraska's federal land entered the private domain."
So the actual purpose of the Nevada Enabling Act’s condition that territorial residents disclaim
“all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory” was simply to
clear title, so the lands could be sold.
“That concept of disclaiming title to Western lands,” says Utah’s Assistant Attorney General
Anthony Rampton, a Westernlands specialist, “goes way back to the Articles of Confederation.
Because without that occurring, the federal government couldn’t convey clear title to the land.”
Disclaiming, he says, “was the vehicle by which disposal was going to be accomplished. It’s not
an obstacle to disposal, it’s the vehicle by which disposal was going to be accomplished.”
What also is frequently not understood today is that wouldbe states such as Nevada were
eager to disclaim title because they had a significant financial interest in the federal
government selling the unappropriated lands.
While most of the revenues from those land sales were to be kept by the federal government —
originally, to pay off the public debt left from the Revolutionary War — all the enabling acts
also specified that significant revenues from those sales were to go to the new states for
education, roads and a multitude of other public improvements.
Thus Nevada’s enabling act — which, like many others, said that the land “shall be sold” —
promised the new state 5 percent of the income produced by those federal sales:
Sec. 10. Five percent of subsequent sales of public lands by United
States to be paid to state for public roads and irrigation. And be it
further enacted, That five percentum of the proceeds of the sales of all public
lands lying within said state, which shall be sold by the United States
subsequent to the admission of said state into the Union, after deducting all
the expenses incident to the same, shall be paid to the said state for the
purpose of making and improving public roads, constructing ditches or
canals, to effect a general system of irrigation of the agricultural land in the
state, as the legislature shall direct.
As “new states were brought on board,” continues Rampton, “every single one of them had to
say, ‘Okay. We disclaim title to all of the public lands within our territorial boundaries.’ That
was the deal.”
To which, he says, the federal government would respond, “‘Okay, and until we extinguish the
U.S. title to these lands, you can’t mess with them, you can’t tax them, for, over a reasonable
period of time we’re going to dispose of them, and then you can bring them within your
revenue base.’”
nevadajournal.com/2013/08/14/broken-compact/
3/6
4. 9/9/13
Broken Compact | Nevada Journal
All parties in the West recognized that until that disposal occurred, the states in the West
would be in trouble financially, says Rampton, since “they couldn’t tax these federal lands.
It was a revenue problem, and it was a recognized revenue problem.” Talk to virtually any state
legislator in Nevada or Utah today and they’ll tell you: That revenue problem still exists today.
Moreover, the Government Accounting Office foresees everworsening fiscal outlooks for
America’s state and local governments, all the way through 2060, with increasing gaps
between receipts and expenditures.
The thinking behind AB 227
Yet were the U.S. Congress — newly alive to the Western public, its politicians, state lawsuits
and the nation’s $16to$70 trillion federal debt — to begin honoring its enablingact
commitments, the financial results for Nevada, the other Western states and the nation itself
could be huge.
Take Nevada alone, as an example.
Today, according to the federal Bureau of Land Management, just three federal agencies —
the BLM, the U.S. Forest Service and the Fish & Wildlife Service — occupy some 77.5 percent,
or 55 million acres, of Silver State land.
At a mere $5,000 an acre — reportedly the lowest price paid for Southern Nevada BLM land
during the depths of the recent recession — that figures out to $13.75 billion for the State of
Nevada and $275 billion for the federal treasury.
Of course, Southern Nevada land usually goes for well above $5,000, and the market value of
much of the rest of the federally occupied land within the state remains unknown. And, given
the absence under the federal regime of not only access but also genuine market pricing, that
is unlikely to change soon.
Moreover, so interwoven are different interests with the federal government’s current
occupation of Nevada lands, and so deficient are state and federal inventories of those lands’
resources, that the actual values at issue are currently unknown.
Indeed, that was a primary reason why the Nevada Legislature, earlier this year, passed
Assembly Bill 227, which established the Nevada Land Management Task Force. Made up of
countycommission representatives from all 17 Nevada counties, it has until Sept. 1, 2014 to
research and report the consequences and responsibilities for the state and its citizens, were
Congress to turn over the management and control of those public lands to the State of
Nevada.
The ‘only remedy that makes sense’
Across the border in Utah, where the issue of the federal government’s breach of its covenant
with that state has been front and center in recent years, Assistant Attorney General Rampton
says the actual resources involved are currently impossible to calculate.
“If you tried to come up with a dollar amount, it would be impossible,” he says. “If you try to
find other remedies, it’s a mess.”
That’s why, says Rampton, Utah chose in 2012 to pass legislation — House Bill 148 —
demanding that the federal government follow through and transfer BLM and Forest Service
lands to that state.
“Frankly, this is the best way to do it — and it’s in everybody’s interest. What we have done, in
making [this] demand, is provide an adequate remedy to a problem.”
According to Rampton, transfer of the public lands from the federal government to the state
governments is the only remedy that makes sense.
“Because if all we were saying is that the federal government has to dispose of these lands, that
would be unpalatable at every level, frankly,” he says.
“It wouldn’t work for anyone, to take all of these public lands and put [them] into private
holdings,” he argues. “You’d lose control, totally. And I don’t think anybody wants that. So it’s
not the objective, and in my discussions over the last two years I have heard no one say that
that’s what we’re trying to do — except the opponents. They say that’s what this is all about.”
Earlier states injured by Congress
nevadajournal.com/2013/08/14/broken-compact/
4/6
5. 9/9/13
Broken Compact | Nevada Journal
Utah, Nevada and the other modern Western states are not the first to confront a faith
breaking U.S. Congress. In the late 1820s and into the 1850s, states in the “West” of that day —
Missouri, Illinois and others — experienced the same kind of congressional recalcitrance. And
yet, eventually, Congress was brought to honor its commitments.
Repeatedly those states complained to Congress that they could not educate their children,
provide economic opportunities for their citizens, and conduct their affairs as sovereign states
because the federal government, for decades, had failed to dispose of the public lands, as
promised.
“[T]he system of disposing of the public lands of the United States now pursued,” wrote
Missouri’s legislature to the U.S. Congress in December 1828, “is highly injurious … to the
States in which those lands lie, and to none, perhaps, more so than to the State of Missouri.”
The letter noted that “several objections to the present system … have heretofore been urged to
the consideration of Congress,” and that those objections “have not been answered
satisfactorily.”
“A perseverance in the present system manifestly appears,” said the state general assembly, “to
be equivalent to a declaration on the part of Congress that it will not sell or dispose of nine
tenths of the public lands in this State…
[T]his general assembly cannot refrain from declaring that it views such
refusal as an infringement of the compact between the United States and this
State; and that the State of Missouri never could have been brought to
consent not to tax the lands of the United States whilst unsold; and not to tax
the lands sold until five years
thereafter, if it had been understood by the contracting parties that a system
was to be pursued which would prevent ninetenths of those lands from ever
becoming the property of persons in whose hands they might be taxed.
Illinois, too, recognized Congress’s bad faith in pricing land so high that it necessarily
remained in federal hands:
[T]he State of Illinois alone contains about forty millions of acres of land, and
… an amount very little exceeding one and a half million of acres have as yet
been disposed of at the public sales. If the present price at which it is required
by law to be sold shall not be reduced, it will be hundreds of years before the
soil will have passed out of the control of the general government, and be
subject to the laws and jurisdiction of this State…
If, as would seem to be most clearly inferable, the high price at which those
lands are required to be disposed of should prevent their sale, it may be a
subject of serious inquiry whether it does not operate as a virtual infraction of
the compact in relation to the not taxing those lands before they are sold, and
for a certain term of time afterwards.
From the terms of that compact, and upon the supposition that the same is
obligatory upon the parties to it, any act on the part of the government to
delay the sales of the land in a reasonable period, whether accomplished by a
positive refusal to sell, or by demanding for it a sum greatly beyond its value,
by which the sales would be defeated, in a great measure, if not wholly so,
would doubtless be an infraction of the compact itself.
Eventually, however, the “Western States” of that earlier era banded together and succeeded.
The federal government was compelled to follow through and dispose of the public lands it still
held in those states.
Steven Miller is the managing editor of Nevada Journal, a publication of the Nevada Policy
Research Institute. For more indepth reporting, visit http://nevadajournal.com/ and
http://npri.org/.
nevadajournal.com/2013/08/14/broken-compact/
5/6