This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2017, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.

It is no secret that both state and federal Utah lawmakers are clamoring for the transfer of some federal public lands to state control. The reasons given are numerous, but nebulous.

Many of the arguments revolving around federal vs. state ownership are existential, never mind that a majority of Utahns want to keep public lands in federal hands. One that hasn't been talked about is a fiscal one: Federal public lands are funded by all Americans, whereas state lands are funded by only state residents. Transferring federal public lands to state control would increase the tax burden on Utah residents, because the burden is transferred from all Americans to only Utah residents. Thus, Utah residents would still be supporting federal lands in other states and would additionally be shouldering the burden of supporting an expanded portfolio of state lands.

While the notion of an increase in taxation should alarm any self-proclaimed fiscal conservative, Utah lawmakers seem to believe that increases in grazing, coal, oil and natural gas production will offset costs associated with land management. But there are major issues with that concept. The coal economy is dying and oil prices are stagnant, the lowest in years. Gas production in the Uinta Basin is already high. And grazing fees on public lands are very cheap, and ranchers want to keep them cheap. So how will all that offset costs?

Utah lawmakers should ask themselves whether such transfers would actually benefit their constituents, or would end up lining the pockets of special interest groups that have financially backed them. Overall, this pursuit doesn't add up to a good deal for Utahns.

Daniel White

Richfield