This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2012, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.

Phoenix • Arizona may join Utah in demanding that the federal government surrender control of millions of acres of public land to the state.

Arizona legislation that appeared dead a month ago was approved Monday by the state House.

Supporters of the legislation say the states would be a better manager of resources such as timber and minerals on land managed by the U.S. Forest Service and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management.

Critics call the legislation an embarrassment and say it could open the door to easing environmental protections for public land.

"This is yet another black eye for the state that we love so much and also for the centuries-long struggle to preserve the beauty of the land...," said Rep. Bruce Wheeler, D-Tucson.

The House's 35-15 vote sends the bill to the Senate. That chamber already approved an earlier version of the bill.

Utah Gov. Gary Herbert signed similar legislation last month.

Each state's legislation specifically includes or exempts certain types of property.

The Utah legislation lists dozens of national parks, national monuments and wilderness areas as being exempted from the demand. The Arizona legislation would cover national forests, national monuments and wildlife refuges but exclude Indian reservations, military bases and national parks.

The original Arizona bill was sidelined last month after the House Rules Committee voted that it was unconstitutional.

That committee's judgment was set aside when the full House changed several provisions of the bill. In a key change, the bill's provision requiring the federal government to surrender control of public land was changed to a demand that Washington do so.

However, supporters acknowledged that there's little chance of that happening, and minority Democrats kept up a drumbeat of criticism of majority Republicans for championing states' rights measures.

"If you guys want to secede from the union, so be it," said Rep. Chad Campbell, D-Phoenix.

The bill's chief supporter said environmental constraints put on mining, logging and other resource industries limit how federally controlled public land can be used in the West, to the detriment of states' economic prosperity.

"This will take the shackles off of us and allow us to prosper," Sen. Al Melvin, R-Tucson, said during a March committee hearing on the bill. "This will be a major game-changer."

Rep. Albert Hale, D-Window Rock, said the bill's supporters who decry federal ownership of huge swaths of public land across the West ignore that the United States took the property from Native Americans.

"If you never look at that injustice and correct that injustice, that injustice continues to this day and to generations forward," said Hale, a former president of the Navajo Nation. "So tell me how does this cure that injustice?"

The Utah law and the Arizona bill both call for formation of a state commission to decide details of how the transfers of control of public land would work.