UPDATE: The Wyoming Senate failed to consider Senate File 105 by the Feb. 10 deadline, so the measure died. — Ed.
The Wyoming Senate is set today to consider a bill that would regulate the sale of private land to the federal government, a measure critics say erodes a fundamental property right.
A Senate panel Thursday endorsed Senate File 105, “An Act to Preserve State Territorial Sovereignty,” which would require Wyoming legislators to approve any sale of property to the federal government. The Senate Agriculture, State and Public Lands and Water Resources Committee advanced the bill with a 4-1 vote over the objections of the Wyoming Stock Growers Association.
Sen. Bob Ide, R-Casper, the bill’s lead sponsor, said “if the government wanted to buy more land within the states, they need to get that consent from the state Legislature.” A critic of federal land ownership in Wyoming, Ide is a member of the ag committee and a commercial real estate developer.
“The private landowner is the one who pays the price. That’s not appropriate.”
Jim Magagna
Senate File 105 is based on an interpretation of the U.S. Constitution that according to Ide only allows the federal government to own property used for its enumerated powers. The Constitution lists those powers as things like imposing taxes, minting money, punishing pirates, maintaining a postal service and military, among a few others. The government has authority over 10 square miles in Washington, D.C. but must get states’ consent to own property not designated for furtherance of enumerated powers, he told the committee.
Under the bill, a person who would sell land to the federal government would submit details to the Legislature, which would then “review and see if [the sale] is constitutional or not,” Ide said. The bill requires “evidence that the federal government would be acquiring the real property in this state pursuant to an enumerated constitutional power,” for a sale to be completed, the bill reads.
“If a person fails to submit that information and goes through with their transaction, essentially, they’re jeopardized with losing the money that they had received for that sale,” Ide said.
Fundamental right
Wyoming Stock Growers Association Executive Vice President Jim Magagna said the group is “strongly opposed” to the bill as drafted.
“To say that the private landowner, who’s exercising [a] private property right that is fundamental to our state and to our nation, that they are the guilty party if they don’t get prior approval from the state — and then such an onerous penalty that they stand to lose the entire amount of the value that they receive for their property — is just something beyond what we can support,” he said.
“The private landowner is the one who pays the price,” Magagna said, “that’s not appropriate.”
The bill would also stymie simple public-access efforts — efforts to obtain easements for hunting, recreation and other things — he said.
“Even that simple step would require this onerous process under the terms that we find in this bill,” Magagna told the panel, which urged him to work on amendments when the measure got to the Senate floor.
Sens. Tim French, R-Powell; Troy McKeown, R-Gillette and Laura Pearson, R-Kemmerer, backed the bill along with Ide. Sen. Barry Crago, R-Buffalo, voted against it.
A conservation group also criticized the measure in a newsletter, saying Ide’s bill would erode the rights of landowners, damage property values and limit public access. “In effect, it would limit new public lands access and erode the rights of private landowners to sell their land to whomever they choose, including for conservation purposes,” the Wyoming Outdoor Council said in an “action alert” email.
The Senate has scheduled the measure, along with other bills, for floor debate at a session that starts at noon today.
Ide’s interpretation of the Constitution
Ide is also the lead sponsor of the resolution that demands Congress turn over 30 million federal acres in Wyoming, including Grand Teton National Park, to the state. That measure is working its way through the upper chamber with the support of 16 senators.
Meantime, the House passed House Bill 118, “Limitations on net land gains for the federal government,” that would prohibit land deals in Wyoming that result in a net-gain of acreage for the federal government. It is headed to the Senate.
A real estate agent and landman, Ide said he believes the Enclave Clause from Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution clearly prohibits most federal land ownership. That’s the same unconventional position adopted by Ammon Bundy during and after the occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon. Many legal scholars and courts disagree with this interpretation.
“I’ve studied it a lot over the last couple of years,” Ide said. “I’ve studied it extensively with a lot of experts.”
“Half of our surface is owned by the federal government, and 70% of our mineral estate,” he said.
“The actual constitutional relationship between the United States and the land within the states was intended to be limited to the furtherance of some specific delegated Article 1 purpose,” he said. “This is undoubtedly why the Enclave Clause … limited the purposes for which the lands may be acquired within the states, for its ports, magazines, arsenals, dockyards and other needful buildings.”
Landowners cannot sell to who they want. A better bill would be for land owners not being able to billionaires and ranches/landowners who have over 5000 acres already or in a llc., trust, ect.., As long as we’re at it, how about a bill to terminate all hunting leases owned by outfitters and land can only be leased by the strategic game and fish, or no tax on land enrolled in HMA ‘s.
Isn’t odd that a legislator who says he understands the Constitution has brought a bill that assigns judicial branch duties to the legislative branch, “Under the bill, a person who would sell land to the federal government would submit details to the Legislature, which would then “review and see if [the sale] is constitutional or not,”. Bob, please give us more examples of your elementary school understanding of the Constitution. There is a great video on Youtube that might help deepen your understanding, School House Rock – The Constitution
Wanna-be cowboy, Boulder Bob has got to go. Boulder Bob poses a clear and present danger to our public lands, public wildlife and private property rights. Given the dramatic losses he is experiencing with bills he has sponsored or co-sponsored, it’s clear Boulder Bob lacks the intellect and common sense required to be an effective legislator. Perhaps now would be a good time for the wanna-be cowboy to reveal which armed standoff against the federal government he, his brother and his father participated in.
This is a tough one. Every time private property that has taxes paid on it goes tax free public, those of us paying taxes have to cough up more. I seriously doubt we can talk the politicians into spending less of our money with each acquisition.
Marion, perhaps you don’t know about PLIT (payment in lieu of taxes) here’s a site that can help you understand the system; https://www.doi.gov/pilt.
This is an outrageous and false interpretation of Article 1 Section 8. My suggestion is Mr. IDE do a simpler dive into the Constitution and start with the Preamble and the words “promote the general welfare”. The state of Wyoming does not in any way have title to federal lands, they belong to We the People of the United States. Ted Bundy? Extremist dangerous crackpot.
The law would be unconstitutional. Ide needs to go.
A commercial real estate developer and Bundy undergrad is WY’s resident expert on Constitutional law. He did his own research. Got it. No conflict of interest to see here. Stop wasting WY taxpayer time and dollars with this nonsense, and bring an Eminent Domain bill forward, creating wide access routes opening all locked out public lands, while also providing WY public landowners fair compensation for livestock grazing on our property.
True conservatives are protectors of the rights of property owners. Ide’s bill is an assault on those rights. Rather than doing his own research regarding what the U.S. Constitution provides, it is more likely he is using “research” he gathered from a certain organization in Washington.
I agree with the other comments that property owners should be able to sell their land without the state dictating who they can sell to. Elected officials come and go and not all of them have the best interests of their constituents at heart. This seems to be the case here.
And this group calls themselves the “Freedom” Caucus. What an absolute joke. We need to go through someone like Dalton Banks, Tim French or Rachel Whatever-Williams to sell our property? Seriously? These small minded people are hell bent on dictating to others as if they are the sole jury and judge and are not in the legislature for the good off all. Some people should never be put in a position of power yet we the voters sent these clowns and morons to Cheyenne to supposedly “represent” us. See how this is working out? The voters who got hoodwinked by these culprits need to wisen up and push the “recall” button next election cycle
Real estate agents as politicians almost guarantees conflict of interests and corruption. Wyoming politics looking like Chicago.
Bob Ide is a man who wants to own everything he can get his hands on. He has only an interest in making sure he can get whatever he wants including federal lands. He is not the least bit of interest in serving the land owners of Wyoming.
He is the land grab. Federal lands bring revenue to this state and lot of it.
If this passes, he will have harmed every landowner in the state, harmed our Agriculture business, and for what? There is no bonus to Wyoming or the citizens of this state at all.
Disgusting bill again from the Freedom nuts.
Bob Ide is a man who wants to own everything he can get his hands on. He has only an interest in making sure he can get whatever he wants including federal lands. He is not the least bit interested in serving the land owners of Wyoming.
He is the land grab. Federal lands bring revenue to this state and lot of it.
If this passes, he will have screwed every landowner in the state, harmed our Agriculture business, and for what. There is no bonus to Wyoming or the citizens of this state at all.
Disgusting bill again from the Freedom nuts.
Madness. They’re overlooking a much more important issue that being the expansion of the intent of the Antiquities Act of 1906 to include acquisitions for which it was never intended. It is the most VAGUE act imaginable and is in desperate need of rewriting. Current interpretation includes numerous designations which are questionable. However, it was used by President Teddy Roosevelt to set aside many of our national forests and national parks. Example, it does not mention paleontological resources but has been interpreted to include them since it does mention archaeological resources.
And then there’s eminent domain whose original intent was for military installations, highways, railroads etc’ but has seen expanded use for battlefields, wildlife preserves. etc, under the interpretation that eminent domains was intended for the “public good “Many of these usages have been beneficial but like the proposal in front of the Wyoming legislature one needs to ask at what point are private property rights violated. The answer is in more definitive federal legislation which updates the federal enabling laws especially with respect to definitions of allowable uses, and, which acquisitions of land by the federal government are necessary and in the “public good”. The Marton Ranch purchase was deemed to be in the “public good” by many of us – so should land purchases, land exchanges and easement/right of way be limited??? Small federal land purchases are inconsequential; however, larger purchases should be vetted in open public discussions in order to determine if the public favors the acquisition. Is this an issue for the Wyoming legislature to address or should it be addressed in congress?? Either way, private property rights must be preserved – and the Marton’s had the right to sell their land as a basic property right.
Finally, many of the most important land transfers are effected by NGOs like the Nature Conservancy and Ducks Unlimited who preserve vast tracts of land using binding legal agreements never before anticipated – the ability to preserve certain lands for “public good” has increasingly become well established in our country – should the ability to preserve land for the “public good” exclude the federal government??? Walking on egg shells on this issue – stay out of it legislature.
For a state that has always seemed to pride itself on being all for private property rights, how did we get to this point? And how can a real estate business person want to stop land sales that might be between a willing seller and willing buyer, no matter who they are?
Will we have to wait for a general session or the budget session to get approval of the legislature for private land sales?? Will it be just in the senate or will the house also be involved?? Will a simple majority approval suffice or will it have to be a super majority ?? Can the Governor still veto their approval ?? I have so many questions when it comes to government over reach ….