OCR Text |
Show a qualitative selection. The state agreed to reduce its entitlement under the Statehood grant to 2 million acres, in addition to the 61,967 acres that had already been transferred to it under the original grant. The result is that in percentage terms, Nevada, in relation to other states, received the lowest percentage of its area in land grants and the second smallest amount in total number of acres.4 The history of this transaction underlines the fact that the grants represent the consummation of contracts negotiated between the Federal Government and the states. Moreover, any attempt to equalize land grants among the states in some fashion is neither feasible nor practical. Some of the states do not have available public domain within their borders to satisfy their potential claims. To bring all the public land states, past and present, up to the point where each one would have received the same percentage of its area as Louisiana (36.2%) would liquidate every acre of the remaining public domain, including the major conservation programs of the National Park Service, the Forest Service, and the Fish and Wildlife Service. Even then, no state would approach the percentage of the area granted to Florida (64.3%). We do not believe that continuing with the status quo would be unfair. Our recommendations elsewhere would require payments in lieu of taxes related to the burdens on states and communities within which Federal lands are located. In addition, we are recommending limited liberalization of the land disposal laws in several particulars. Therefore, we do not agree that additional land grants to states are needed for the main purpose for which grants have previously been used, i.e., to put more land on the tax rolls in the public land states.* Final Satisfaction of Original Grants Recommendation 105: Within a relatively brief period, perhaps from 3 to 5 years, the Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with the involved states, should be required to 4 The total of 2.7 million acres shown in the accompanying table includes grants in addition to the "Statehood Grant." * Commissioners Bible and Baring submit the following separate views: The Commission's report has recommended against land grants from the Federal Government to the individual states. We do not agree with this decision. We believe Nevada's justification should have been sustained by Commission members. Nevada stands at the bottom of the 50 states in percentage terms with relation to lands granted to it by the Federal Government. It is our opinion the Federal Government should give consideration to states such as Nevada which are desperately in need of additional lands to expand the tax base and insure future growth. Therefore, we do not concur with the majority views. classify land as suitable for state indemnity selection, in reasonably compact units, and such classifications should aggregate at least 3 or 4 times the acreage due to each state. In the event the affected states do not agree, within 2 years thereafter, to satisfy their grants from the lands so classified, the Secretary should be required to report the differences to the Congress. If no resolution, legislative or otherwise, is reached at the end of 3 years after such report, making a total of 10 years of classification, selection, and negotiation, all such grants should be terminated. To understand state land grant problems, it is essential to recognize the general rule that quantity and other grants, subject to selection, can be made only from "vacant, unappropriated, non-mineral, surveyed public lands within the State to which the grant was made." However, if they are otherwise available, lands may be selected which have been withdrawn, classified, or reported as valuable for coal, phosphate, oil gas, or any other leasable minerals, on the condition that the minerals for which the lands are considered valuable are reserved to the United States.5 Moreover, since 1785, no disposal of public domain land has been effective until a survey into township and sections has been completed. Prior to the survey, however, the land has been subject to appropriation, under various laws, by third parties, and to withdrawal for Federal purposes. If either of these situations exists in a particular grant land, an in-place grant is frustrated and the area also is not available for selection to satisfy a quantity grant. Commencing with the admission of Ohio, Congress has allowed the selection by the states of other public domain land as indemnity for grants which have been thwarted for either of these reasons. Particularly with regard to numbered sections granted for common schools, Congress has recognized the position of the states and has periodically liberalized their lieu-section rights to replace such lands. The original Ohio Enabling Act gave "equivalent" lands where section 16 proved to be "sold, granted or disposed of . . ." Prior to 1927, there was uncertainty as to whether in-place grants passed to the states if the lands were mineral in character. This led to confusion regarding title. The matter was resolved when an act was passed making it clear that mineral lands encompassed within-place grants did pass to the states.6 5 43 U.S.C. §§851-852 (1964), as amended, (Supp. IV, 1969). 6 43 U.S.C. §870(1964). 245 |