Things are brewing in this here state of Utah that will make the Oklahoma Landrush of 1889 pale in comparison. Although the contours of and players in this landgrab are still nascent, some aspects are beginning to emerge. The state of Utah seeks to lay claim to all or nearly all of the federal lands within the boundaries of the state . At the same time, ranchers in this state are saying au contraire, we own in these lands out right that we have been leasing from the federal government. As things develop, we may expect more claimants to emerge. For instance, holders of Federal mineral leases, oil and gas leases, timber cutting permits, Ski resorts, marinas and perhaps such users as backcountry outfitters, River floaters and the like.
A commission of the Utah Legislature has engaged the legal services of a reverse carpetbagging firm from New Orleans., This is not entirely clear because the spokesman of the firm claims they only represent the chairman of the commission. One wonders if this chairman is on the hook individually for the legal bills. Apparently the chairman and his legal eagles are unwilling to share the legal analysis with the Democrats in the Utah legislature. Whether the attorney general of the state of Utah has been made privey to this analysis is unclear, at least to me.
Wholly apart from the merits, if any, of these novel legal claims, is the question of how litigation would be structured. Would the plaintiff be the state of Utah or the chairman of the commission, perhaps acting ex rel? In either case there would be an interesting standing issue. Currently before the United States Supreme Court is a case that should shed light on the ability of states to bring actions as plaintiff disputing actions taken by representatives of branches of the federal government claimed to injure the state. Were the chairman to be the plaintiff, standing would be even more problematic.
As far as the claims of the State of Utah, there would seem to be other preliminary issues before the merits could be reached. For instance, even if framed as an action for declaratory relief, there would seem to be a question of whether there is an actual case or controversy ripe for adjudication. Given that there does not appear to be a dispute over the title to any particular property arising out of a specific claim by the state of Utah, what would seem to be requested would be a type of an advisory opinion that the federal courts do not provide. Also might the political question doctrine be implicated?
Actually, an individual plaintiff claiming title to a particular Parcel of Federal land might assert a claim more ripe for adjudication .
What would be a truly wonderful spectator sport, would be an action by the state of Utah seeking to require the federal Government to relinquish and convey to the state of Utah title to all federal lands within the boundaries of the state. Then, perhaps all the individual claimants could intervene. Something like a general adjudication as occurs in cases of contested water rights might happen. This is, obviously, highly unlikely but it certainly would be in the nature of a relief act for lawyers.
Meanwhile, in common with the democrat members of the legislature, I would really like to see the $500,000 legal analysis, which I will undoubtedly as a tax payer pay for.
No comments:
Post a Comment