• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Arizonans to vote on taking Grand Canyon, other lands from federal control

madman

madman

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 28, 2011
Messages
10,558
Reaction score
7,951
Location
So. California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal



Arizonans to vote on taking Grand Canyon, other lands from federal control - U.S. News


The right-wing wackos are going to destroy the Grand Canyon.
This is one BIG Mistake.
Apparently there's a big push to mine Uranium in the Canyon. WTF? Really? There goes the source of clean water for the western US.





When voters in Arizona go to the polls next month, they will be asked to decide a landownership tug of war: Should the Grand Canyon belong to all Americans, or just the residents of Arizona?


A controversial ballot measure backed by Republicans in the state legislature is seeking sovereign control over millions of acres of federal land in the state, including the Grand Canyon.
Proposition 120 would amend the state's constitution to declare Arizona's sovereignty and jurisdiction over the "air, water, public lands, minerals, wildlife and other natural resources within the state's boundaries."
The measure is the latest salvo in the so-called "sagebrush revolt" by Republicans in the West aiming to take back control of major swaths of land owned by various federal agencies, much of it by the Interior Department's Bureau of Land Management.
 
Over 40% of the state is federally owned - geesh. I actually get the state's issue with that.

With such a large area in question I don't see why they wouldn't be able to come to an agreement - a divide, really - that would aid in settling the issue without actually putting such a vastly relied on water source (etc) in question.
 
God what a bunch of dorks. Federal lands can only be released to states by decree. In any event this is a VERY BAD IDEA
 
I am sure the feds will win. Didn't Clinton declare a huge chunk of Arizona a new national park for no reason other than he could not get a mining authorization amendment off a piece of legislation he otherwise supported and signed? I am thinking it had something to do with strip mining.
 
Hopefully Arizonans vote for yes,Let states decide and pay for running parks and how much of it they actually want to designate as a park lands.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Over 40% of the state is federally owned - geesh. I actually get the state's issue with that.

With such a large area in question I don't see why they wouldn't be able to come to an agreement - a divide, really - that would aid in settling the issue without actually putting such a vastly relied on water source (etc) in question.
Click to expand...

That's a big part of it.

You all may remember the rather devastating fires we've had here over the past few years and a large part of the reason that those fires were so bad is that federal regulations didn't allow the land to be maintained in such a way that the impact of such fires could be mitigated.

We also have a large portion of the state that is desert. Water management is a HUGE issue out here and there are serious concerns with the way that the federal government handles water issues.

Take a look at this map (you can zoom in) - http://www.land.state.az.us/images/maps/stateplot.jpg
The light blue areas are state trust land and the white are private land. Everything else is either federal, military or indian reservation. What we're looking for is state control over the wildlife reserves and BLM land so that we can have a little say in how it gets used. For example, the city of Tombstone has their water infrastructure damaged in the 2011 fire but federal regulators won't let them repair it which leaves the town in the position of not being able to defend itself from the next fire.
Witnesses: Obama Administration Actions and Regulations Threaten Jobs, Drive Up Costs of Water and Power, Burden Local Economies - House Committee on Natural Resources

I understand that the left wants to paint the issue as one of Arizonans trying to destroy the Grand Canyon but that's the kind of desperate hyperventilation that pretty much always accompanies a toddler having his toy taken away because he's not playing with it responsibly.
 
Lutherf said:
I understand that the left wants to paint the issue as one of Arizonans trying to destroy the Grand Canyon but that's the kind of desperate hyperventilation that pretty much always accompanies a toddler having his toy taken away because he's not playing with it responsibly.
Click to expand...

That sums it up nicely.
 
Arizona has no legal authority to take over a national park. They're going to lose this battle, and they're stupid for even waging it in the first place. I understand their concern about the federal government owning so much of their state's land...but maybe they should start by petitioning for all that federal land that *isn't* a world famous landmark.
 
Well I am from Arizona and I will say I voted against the Bill.
Yet, how soon people forget that Utah signed a similar bill

Even our Republican Gov is not in favor and has vetoed a bill that would "In May, Arizona's Republican Governor Jan Brewer vetoed a state bill calling on Washington to relinquish the title to 48,000 square miles, "

So just because some extreme individuals get a bill on the ballot does not mean it will pass.
 
jamesrage said:
Hopefully Arizonans vote for yes,Let states decide and pay for running parks and how much of it they actually want to designate as a park lands.
Click to expand...

The Grand Canyon is a NATIONAL Park, the land belongs to the Federal Govt. How much money is Arizona going to offer to buy that land? I'd say 50% of all State residents income for the next 25 years might do it. Start saving now.
 
mike2810 said:
Well I am from Arizona and I will say I voted against the Bill.
Yet, how soon people forget that Utah signed a similar bill

Even our Republican Gov is not in favor and has vetoed a bill that would "In May, Arizona's Republican Governor Jan Brewer vetoed a state bill calling on Washington to relinquish the title to 48,000 square miles, "

So just because some extreme individuals get a bill on the ballot does not mean it will pass.
Click to expand...

As a fellow Arizonan I have to ask, what was your rationale for voting against it?
 
jamesrage said:
Hopefully Arizonans vote for yes,Let states decide and pay for running parks and how much of it they actually want to designate as a park lands.
Click to expand...

jamesrage said:
Hopefully Arizonans vote for yes,Let states decide and pay for running parks and how much of it they actually want to designate as a park lands.
Click to expand...

The US Constitution does not allow for Arizona to do this and it gives Congress full authority over Federal Lands "The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State."

Also the agreement that created Arizona as a state specifically stated that they gave up "“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"
 
Lutherf said:
As a fellow Arizonan I have to ask, what was your rationale for voting against it?
Click to expand...

The state does not have the finances to manage and protect the public lands if all were turned over to them. (Let's take wildfire for example. The State for years has lacked sufficient funds to even protect State Lands in the event of a large fire. For the most part they look to financial relief from the Feds. (how do I know, from 89 till I retired I managed fire operations for BLM in Arizona. We worked closely with the State).

They talk about improved Forest Management. The current staff levels in State Forestry is not enough manage the lands they currently have. The idea of turning over to private interest to cover/manage part of the newly aquired lands is not in the publics best interest (imo)

The ideal of eventually selling off or turning over public land to private interests is a disservice to all who live in the US. Once it is sold, it is gone from the public sector.

The State Lawmakers already rob Park and Rec revenues to pay for other projects to the point Towns and local groups of volunteers are used to keep some State Parks open more (Tonto Natural Bridge as an example).

Since you asked the question , I will guess you are for it or leaning towards being in favor. IMO, it is a poorly constructed law with no forthought that if it happened how the State would actually manage the new lands.

So if you are for it, why?
 
jamesrage said:
Hopefully Arizonans vote for yes,Let states decide and pay for running parks and how much of it they actually want to designate as a park lands.
Click to expand...

JR. most of the time we are in agreement when it comes to State issues. However, the bill is more than just Parks. It is an attempt to take most of the Federal Lands (National Forest, Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service). There is some exceptions.

It is a poorly written bill without any long term impact thought out. So as an Arizona resident. I for one think the State Leg. is a bit out of line with this one.
 
mike2810 said:
The state does not have the finances to manage and protect the public lands if all were turned over to them. (Let's take wildfire for example. The State for years has lacked sufficient funds to even protect State Lands in the event of a large fire. For the most part they look to financial relief from the Feds. (how do I know, from 89 till I retired I managed fire operations for BLM in Arizona. We worked closely with the State).

They talk about improved Forest Management. The current staff levels in State Forestry is not enough manage the lands they currently have. The idea of turning over to private interest to cover/manage part of the newly aquired lands is not in the publics best interest (imo)

The ideal of eventually selling off or turning over public land to private interests is a disservice to all who live in the US. Once it is sold, it is gone from the public sector.

The State Lawmakers already rob Park and Rec revenues to pay for other projects to the point Towns and local groups of volunteers are used to keep some State Parks open more (Tonto Natural Bridge as an example).

Since you asked the question , I will guess you are for it or leaning towards being in favor. IMO, it is a poorly constructed law with no forthought that if it happened how the State would actually manage the new lands.

So if you are for it, why?
Click to expand...

My primary concern is the rather antagonistic relationship AZ now has with the Fed and how I would much prefer that the Feds no longer hold as much leverage over the state as they do. I'm also a big proponent of opening up lands for timbering. Having lived in the Boise area for a number of years I feel like I have a pretty good familiarity with what to expect from controlled growth forests and, frankly, I liked what I saw. Managed forests didn't get devastated like so many of the unmanaged ones did in Idaho.

I also have serious concerns about water management and feel that we have a terrific body highly capable water folks here in AZ. It's actually one area where I see the hassling between the "econazi's" on the left and the "industrial robber barons" on the right serving the public really well. I have a sneaking suspicion that if left to our own devices Arizona would have a better water management program than anything that the federal government has concocted.

Essentially, I just believe that Arizonans will be better stewards of their lands than that gaggle from DC will ever be.
 
iguanaman said:
The Grand Canyon is a NATIONAL Park, the land belongs to the Federal Govt. How much money is Arizona going to offer to buy that land? I'd say 50% of all State residents income for the next 25 years might do it. Start saving now.
Click to expand...

This isn't about the Grand canyon specifically - that's just the partisan twist. It's about the people of the state being able to control the resources of the state.
 
Lutherf said:
Essentially, I just believe that Arizonans will be better stewards of their lands than that gaggle from DC will ever be.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Not to mention the Colorado River will still be multistate giving the feds effective legislative control over the GC.
 
clownboy said:
This isn't about the Grand canyon specifically - that's just the partisan twist. It's about the people of the state being able to control the resources of the state.
Click to expand...

Resources which... never belonged to the states in any period of American history?
 
Hatuey said:
Resources which... never belonged to the states in any period of American history?
Click to expand...

Out of curiosity, without the states then what, exactly, would the federal government be the government of?
 
Lutherf said:
Out of curiosity, without the states then what, exactly, would the federal government be the government of?
Click to expand...

What a weird question. A state (any) only exists with certain powers handed down to lower constitutions. However, the concept of FEDERALLY OWNED LAND has been a fact of life since day 1 in our country. For Arizona, not even an original colony and for all purposes, a former territory, to show up now and start telling people that federally owned lands belong to them is treasonous to say the least. It's essentially stating that Arizona has the power to supersede the authority handed to the federal government when it comes to certain physical lands. Good luck arguing that in court.
 
Thanks to Lutherf and mike2810 for the insightful and informative posts outlining both sides of the issue. I have learned something today! Good job, both of you! :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom