Opinion: Beyond control — stewardship of Utah's public lands
The Utah Legislature has doubled down in recent years. In 2025, House Speaker Mike Schultz prioritized public lands, affirming against federal oversight.
That message was followed by HCR12, a resolution introduced by state Rep. Steve Eliason, urging Congress to create a framework allowing states to assume operational responsibility for federal lands. Supporters cite efficiency; opponents fear weakened conservation.
But the real concern isn't just about governance but stewardship. Utah is home to world-class recreation, vital mineral resources and vast open spaces. The federal government has shown they will protect these lands, as they have for decades. How would our public lands be managed under state control?
In 2024, the governor's office launched the Stand for Our Land campaign, advocating for more state control over public lands. This intensified after the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Public Lands Rule prioritized conservation alongside commercial uses. Utah leaders opposed it, citing restrictions on rural economies, while conservation groups argued it protected ecosystems and balanced priorities.
Earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected Utah's petition to assume control over federal lands. Gov. Spencer Cox reaffirmed Utah's commitment to challenge constraining BLM politics by stating that it 'remains able and willing to challenge any BLM land management decisions that harm Utah.'
Utah's federal delegation is also taking up the fight. On Feb. 11, Rep. Celeste Maloy introduced the Western Economic Security Today (WEST) Act in the U.S. House of Representatives, which seeks to repeal the BLM's Public Lands Rule.
While this debate is framed as a struggle for authority between state and federal governments, the real concern is how the lands are managed. Utah leaders stress stewardship, but history reflects development over conservation.
Utah already manages 3.3 million acres of land through the School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration (SITLA), which is designed to generate revenue for public schools, juvenile services and miners' hospitals (this amount is down from the original 7.4 million that was allocated at statehood). SITLA leases land for industries to fund education, which comes at the expense of conservation. This raises concerns about state control and how it prioritizes development over preservation.
The federal government controls nearly 70% of all Utah land — and for good reason. Managing 22.8 million acres, which includes overseeing wildfire prevention, tourism, maintenance and other infrastructure, costs $247 million annually, per a 2014 report. The federal government has more resources to support those costs compared to the state budget.
There are valid concerns about federal control. Bureaucracy slows even widely supported projects. An example is the Bonneville Shoreline Trail, an ambitious 280-mile trail planned to connect central Utah to the Idaho border, offering a way to engage with Utah's natural beauty. By crossing BLM land, forest and private land, the BST faced years of delays until 2022 legislation alleviated restrictions.
The BST shows that states streamline projects, but large-scale control is another concern. While the BST's success highlights efficiency, it must not come at the cost of conservation.
At the heart of the debate, this isn't about who should own the land. Utah's protected lands are more than a political play — they are recreational spaces, ecosystems and cultural landmarks iconic to Utah. Whether managed by federal or state government, what matters is a promised commitment to stewardship that prioritizes preservation, conservation and long-term responsibility. From Utah's red rock canyons to alpine forest, millions of visitors come near and far to visit our great state. If conservation is not prioritized, irreversible damage could come to pass under the banner of industry and growth.
Stewardship isn't just about preserving the past; it's about curating a future where Utah's lands remain beautiful and public for generations to come, in the great state we call home.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
Norway's Wealth Fund to reduce Israeli holdings amid regional tensions
Norway's sovereign wealth fund has disclosed plans to scale back its investments in Israeli companies. The decision follows a review prompted by the deteriorating humanitarian conditions in Gaza and the West Bank. The fund, which is an extension of Norway's central bank, has recently ceased its relationships with external asset managers who previously oversaw some of its Israeli investments. As a result, the fund has already divested from 11 Israeli firms, although it has not publicly named these companies. A Reuters report suggested that the review was accelerated after the fund's investment in an Israeli jet engine company came to light, a company known for providing maintenance services to the Israeli military. To address these concerns, the fund has stated that all Israeli investments formerly handled by external managers will now be managed internally. The investment strategy regarding Israeli companies will now be more selective, focusing only on those listed in the equity benchmark index. As of the end of 2024, the fund's stakes in Israeli firms were valued at $1.95bn, with investments in 65 companies. In the past year, the fund has divested from an Israeli energy company and a telecommunications group on ethical grounds. Moreover, an ethics council is currently evaluating whether the fund should divest from five banks. Despite Norway's parliament rejecting a motion to divest from all companies operating in the occupied Palestinian territories, the fund has, to date, excluded 11 companies on the advice of the Council on Ethics. These exclusions were due to the potential risk of contributing to severe norm violations in the West Bank. "Norway's Wealth Fund to reduce Israeli holdings amid regional tensions " was originally created and published by Private Banker International, a GlobalData owned brand. The information on this site has been included in good faith for general informational purposes only. It is not intended to amount to advice on which you should rely, and we give no representation, warranty or guarantee, whether express or implied as to its accuracy or completeness. You must obtain professional or specialist advice before taking, or refraining from, any action on the basis of the content on our site.
Yahoo
8 hours ago
- Yahoo
Trump and California: Court to decide legality of National Guard deployment to Los Angeles
A three-day bench trial will begin Monday over whether President Trump's National Guard deployment to Los Angeles violated a general prohibition on using federal troops as civilian law enforcement. U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer will hear testimony from three military and immigration officials as the judge weighs whether sending in troops to combat immigration protests violated the Posse Comitatus Act. It marks a major legal confrontation between Trump and California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D), who has condemned the deployment as political theater and broadly framed himself as the face of resistance against the president's agenda. Only 300 of the nearly 5,000 Guard members sent to Los Angeles in June remain, but the trial is moving ahead as Newsom urges Trump to send the remaining troops home. Marines were also deployed but were released last month. 'It reinforces the litigation strategy,' Newsom told reporters last week. 'Those things are not coincidental,' the governor continued. 'Had we not positioned ourselves, had we not postured with that litigation approach, we would not be in this position with that withdrawal.' Trial to focus on troops' operations Newsom sued Trump in June as the president federalized the California National Guard to combat immigration protests in Los Angeles that sometimes turned violent. The governor has been unsuccessful so far. Breyer ruled Trump illegally federalized the National Guard and ordered he hand back control to Newsom, but the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals quickly lifted the ruling until it resolves the administration's appeal. That decision is likely still months away. As the appeal over Trump's authority proceeds, it does not address what activities the troops may engage in while on the ground. That's the subject of this week's trial. Newsom asserts the deployment violates the Posse Comitatus Act, an 1878 federal law that generally bars federal troops from participating in civilian law enforcement. Some of the troops have been stationed at several federal buildings in downtown Los Angeles, which is not at issue. But the state has taken aim at troops who have went elsewhere to accompany immigration agents, including during a violent raid at a cannabis farm last month that left one dead. The administration argues the Posse Comitatus Act provides no pathway for California to sue. Even if it did, the administration contends the law is superseded by another statute it argues expressly authorizes the National Guard's efforts. 'Accompanying federal law enforcement officials for their protection as those officials enforce federal immigration laws does not mean that the troops are themselves engaging in law enforcement,' the administration wrote in court filings. But California warned that the administration's position would give Trump unchecked power. 'It simply is not the law that Defendants may deploy standing armies to the streets of California while California is powerless to do anything about that clear violation of the most fundamental principles of our Nation's founding,' California wrote in court filings last week. ICE, military officials to testify The parties are expected to summon a total of three witnesses, court records show. Newsom plans to call Ernesto Santacruz Jr., who leads Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) Los Angeles field office. The state also intends to call William Harrington and Maj. Gen. Scott Sherman, leaders of an Army task force that has tactical control over the deployed federalized Guard troops. The Trump administration also will call Sherman but did not list any other witness. The parties estimated the combined testimony will last upward of eight hours, not including cross-examination. Breyer has indicated he expects the witnesses to conclude by Tuesday. Then, the judge will then hear legal arguments from both sides. The Justice Department insists the trial is unnecessary. It asked Breyer to forgo the proceedings and immediately toss Newsom's claims, but the judge declined to do so. 'Next week's trial is not cancelled. The Court expects to hear evidence beginning on Monday,' Breyer ruled last week. Among first trials challenging Trump policies This week's proceeding is one of the first full-fledged trials challenging one of Trump's actions since returning to the White House. His administration faces more than 300 lawsuits challenging major policies in total. But most plaintiffs have pressed their claims in truncated, emergency proceedings. Several judges have converted those emergency rulings into final judgments, sending the case to the appeals courts without going through an actual trial. Breyer's trial follows two others held this summer. Last month, a Boston-based federal judge conducted a bench trial challenging the Trump administration's arrests of pro-Palestinian activists on college campuses. He has not yet ruled. The same judge in June held a bench trial on Democratic states and health groups' bid to reinstate nearly $800 million in health grants the administration canceled over links to diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives. The judge ruled for the plaintiffs, and the Justice Department has filed an emergency appeal at the Supreme Court, which could rule at any time. This week's trial will unfold in Breyer's courtroom in San Francisco. The Justice Department has criticized California for filing its lawsuit there, 'hundreds of miles from the scene.' Breyer was appointed by former President Clinton and is the younger brother of retired Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer. The trial marks a major moment for California Attorney General Rob Bonta's (D) office, which is suing alongside Newsom. Bonta has taken pride in the barrage of litigation he has brought against Trump. Last week, he touted that he is a plaintiff in 37 lawsuits against the administration and has restored more than $168 billion in funding to California. 'The moment the Trump administration stops breaking the law and violating the Constitution, we'll stop suing. Simple,' Bonta told reporters last week. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Solve the daily Crossword
Bloomberg
12 hours ago
- Bloomberg
Philippines Says Seriously Concerned With China Ships' Actions
The Philippines said it's 'seriously concerned' with the 'dangerous maneuvers' of Chinese vessels this week and called out Beijing for its 'unlawful interference' with a routine humanitarian operation. 'As we continue to maintain our presence in the West Philippine Sea, the Philippines will unstintingly assert and protect its sovereignty, sovereign rights, and jurisdiction in accordance with international law,' Manila's Department of Foreign Affairs said in a statement on Tuesday, using its term for areas in the South China Sea that are within the Philippines' exclusive economic zone.
