OCR Text |
Show school funds established as a result of these grants, however, generate only- a small fraction of the total amount spent on education by the past or present public land states. In no state does the trust fund generate more than 6.8 percent of the total expended, and in all but 4 states less than 3 percent is so generated. While the Commission does not oppose dedicating grant lands to education, it favors leaving to the state legislatures the decision as to how and when to apply this policy. Lands granted for a particular purpose have been considered to be held in trust by the state for the purpose granted. If the lands are disposed of, the proceeds, in turn, are to be held in trust for the grant's stated purpose.10 In modern times these restrictions have frequently proved to be obsolete and burdensome. In Ohio, for example, a provision which required the state to obtain the consent of the inhabitants of the township in which the land was located prior to a sale of school grant lands and then invest the proceeds for the use of schools in that township, led the state to seek and secure congressional relief from the grant restrictions. Under a 1968 Act of Congress,11 the proceeds from such sales may now be used for whatever educational purposes the Ohio legislature deems appropriate. Faced with problems similar to those of Ohio, other states have acted unilaterally, by amendment to state constitutions or by state legislation, to relieve themselves of burdensome restrictions. Such practices are of questionable legality, however, because the actions seem to attempt to nullify the conditions of grants from the United States. The Commission believes that lands granted to the states will better serve the purposes for which they were granted if unrealistic and narrow restrictions on the grants are removed. The disposition and management of such lands, as well as the funds generated by them, should now be left to the discretion of the various state legislative bodies. Alaska With over 95 percent of all of its land federally owned, Alaska, for more than one reason, presents a unique situation. At the time of the last official census, there were slightly more than 1,500 acres of public land for each person in the state. The Alaska Statehood Act12 granted to the state more than 104 million acres to be selected from the unreserved public lands within the state. Recognizing 10 See Lassen v. Arizona, 385 U.S. 458 (1967). 11 Act of May 13, 1968, 82 Stat. 120. 12 See § 6 of the Alaska Statehood Act, 72 Stat. 339, as amended, 48 U.S.C. p. 9026 (1964). 248 that the viability of the state government and the growth potential of the state would be determined in its formative years by the availability of land and resources for economic activity, the Act designated that 102,550,000, acres of the total grant were to be for general state purposes. The right to select land under mineral lease expired on January 3, 1969; the right to make selections of other lands continues until 1984. The state has selected about 25 percent of the land necessary to satisfy its grants. The Commission has concluded that, in accordance with the view of Congress at the time of the state's admission, the general role of federally owned lands in Alaska should be oriented to facilitate the state's selection rights in order to serve the objective or regional economic growth and assurance of the viability of Alaska as a state. If the state is allowed to complete its selection process expeditiously, it may be anticipated that it will select those lands that will be more valuable in non-Federal than in Federal ownership. It will then be the responsibility of the state to determine the future role of these lands in its economy. Haphazard disposals of Federal public lands thereafter could be contrary to the well developed plans made by the state for regional and local land use, and could burden the state and local governments with additional responsibility without corresponding benefit. Lack of cadastral surveys, Federal agency classifications, and Federal and state administrative delays have all contributed to the delay in satisfaction of the grants to Alaska. But the primary impediment to completion of the state selection program is the claims asserted by the Alaskan natives to most of the land available for selection. The United States, while reserving the right to extinguish aboriginal claims, traditionally and consistently sought to recognize the rights, through purchase or other form of cession, of those native groups owning land prior to the acquisition of an area. When this country purchased Alaska from Russia in 1867, there were many native inhabitants (classified as Aleuts, Indians, and Eskimos) in the territory. Whenever the question has arisen, Congress has taken the opportunity to assert and reassert that the claims of natives to the use, occupancy, and ownership of land in Alaska would be protected, and statutes, including the Statehood Act, that might be in conflict with such rights, whatever they may be, contain provisions asserting that they are not intended to, and do not have the effect of, jeopardizing those rights.13 We believe that we, as a Nation, must provide for an equitable settlement of the claims asserted by the Alaskan natives. 13 See § 4, id. at 9025. |