Claim and evidence for legislation letter

Civics & Government Responsibility

• Federal lands are managed under constitutional authority by agencies such as the National Park Service and the U.S. Forest Service.

• Creating a separate state mapping and oversight system duplicates authority and could weaken cooperative agreements already in place.

• This bill may lay the groundwork for legal challenges to federal land ownership, creating jurisdictional confusion and costly litigation.

Historical Examples

• Past attempts by states to assert control over federal lands (such as the “Sagebrush Rebellion”) have largely failed in court and increased political tension without improving land outcomes.

• These efforts often resulted in prolonged lawsuits rather than better land management.

Ethics & Public Interest

• Federal lands belong to all Americans, not just residents of Utah.

• Policies that prioritize state control risk limiting broader national interests such as conservation, climate protection, and equitable access.

• Stewardship of shared resources should emphasize fairness and collective responsibility.

Comparative Examples

• States that work collaboratively with federal agencies—through joint fire mitigation programs and shared conservation efforts—have seen better outcomes than states that pursue confrontational approaches.

• Cooperative wildfire prevention programs have proven more effective than unilateral action.

Anecdotal & Real-World Impact

• Outdoor recreation businesses, local communities near national parks, and environmental groups depend on stable and predictable land management.

• Increased conflict between governments could disrupt tourism, conservation efforts, and local economies without improving safety or environmental protection.