Column on Wyoming's push to purchase Occidental's Land

[Ben Lamb]

Good reminder for those who think the state can or does care about hunters or outdoor recreation when it comes to state land. Cat is a sheep rancher between Farson & Pinedale. I've known her for a long time, and while I don't agree with some of her beliefs, I think her take here is worth the 5 minute read.

Cat Urbigkit: State Trust Lands Aren’t “Public” Land

Most people Ive talked to about this proposed land deal usually respond with What the and I thought the State was broke, but some have expressed the view…

cowboystatedaily.com

 

[TOGIE]

i'm not really sure what her point was..... it was just a state trust land 101

i only gather that she doesn't like the lack of transparency regarding the deal, and i imagine she isn't a big fan of people recreating on state trust lands

 

[Deleted member 28227]

i'm not really sure what her point was..... it was just a state trust land 101

i only gather that she doesn't like the lack of transparency regarding the deal, and i imagine she isn't a big fan of people recreating on state trust lands

Which... yeah there is a CA in place... so...

Cat would you rather the state just not consider the deal at all?

 

[Ben Lamb]

It is a 101 on state trust lands. The issue is complex enough tat I think it's worth doing the same article every year until people understand that state trust land is NOT public land.

I think she's raising some valid criticisms of this deal. If the state is dipping into the PMTF and other revenue sources to pay for this, while it's still suffering budget deficits, there should be some hard looks at why now.

As was discussed in the other thread, this seems like a big win for Occi, but without some significant improvements to WY's state trust statutes relative to recreation, what is the state getting in terms of long-term, sustainable revenue in this purchase? If I were a Wyoming resident, I'd want to see what the ROI is and what the plan for adding 20% more state lands, that I couldn't camp on or utilize if the lessee says no.

 

[TOGIE]

i used to be under the impression that wyoming game and fish paid like a blanket check to the land board each year for the essentially statewide "public" access to trust lands, but i've since learned that's not true. it's simply the several times referenced rules of the land board that have been adopted, correct? with no other financial stipulatoins?

without putting words in anyones mouth could this be an example change to state trust statutes that some might want? payment to the land boar for access? perhaps a percentage paid to the lessee if there is one?

though i'm sure the popular opinion of landowners in wyoming would be to remove recreational privelages from state land entirely. i kind of see cat's opinion as a thinly, vaguely?, veiled argument for such


like the CA wllm mentioned, i imagine some things like ROI estimates, and just generally the asset value, especially as it relates to exploration and production in energy, might remain shadowed from the public. i won't give an opinion on whether or not i think that's right. i think the bill obviously required such things and required them to reviewed by the appropriate legislative eyeballs, but that might not mean we (really the wyo citizens) get to know them

 

[Deleted member 28227]

As was discussed in the other thread, this seems like a big win for Occi, but without some significant improvements to WY's state trust statutes relative to recreation, what is the state getting in terms of long-term, sustainable revenue in this purchase? If I were a Wyoming resident, I'd want to see what the ROI is and what the plan for adding 20% more state lands, that I couldn't camp on or utilize if the lessee says no.

I'd assume it will be valued at PDP cash flow to 10-15 years, no credit given for surface or minerals, with the upside for the state being grazing and other activities.

Talked with a group of industry people about this deal last weekend and everyone was cracking up at the 500 million price tag. General sentiment was that 100 million would be a stretch and no one thought it had a snowballs chance in hell.

No one had insider info on the deal or the asset, I've just giving some perspective on what some grey hairs in the industry thought about it.

 

[Irrelevant]

until people understand that state trust land is NOT public land.

But it sorta of is.
From that column "the State Land Board has adopted rules allowing the “public the privilege of hunting, fishing, and general recreational use on state trust lands.” Recreational privileges on state trust lands come with sideboards: the lands must be legally accessible, and off-road use, overnight camping, open fires, and anything else that would damage the property are prohibited on state trust lands."

Those are pretty damn broad side boards. Hell, there are more regulations in a State Park.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

But it sorta of is.
From that column "the State Land Board has adopted rules allowing the “public the privilege of hunting, fishing, and general recreational use on state trust lands.” Recreational privileges on state trust lands come with sideboards: the lands must be legally accessible, and off-road use, overnight camping, open fires, and anything else that would damage the property are prohibited on state trust lands."

Those are pretty damn broad side boards. Hell, there are more regulations in a State Park.

Not a correction but just further info:

State parks in WY, like Curt Gowdy are managed by Wyoming Division of State Parks and Cultural Resources which is an entirely different agency than the State Land Board.

Same split in Colorado. In CO there is 0 access to state land trust lands unless they have been leased by and are managed by Colorado Parks and Wildlife. In CO one state agencies has to lease land from another to make it public.

 

[Ben Lamb]

But it sorta of is.
From that column "the State Land Board has adopted rules allowing the “public the privilege of hunting, fishing, and general recreational use on state trust lands.” Recreational privileges on state trust lands come with sideboards: the lands must be legally accessible, and off-road use, overnight camping, open fires, and anything else that would damage the property are prohibited on state trust lands."

Those are pretty damn broad side boards. Hell, there are more regulations in a State Park.

State Parks are essentially the equivilent of National Parks. Bad example. We would want to compare multiple use public lands to state trust. That's the most linear comparison.

So you can't camp, have a fire, hunt, fish, hike, drive on or off road (in some states, no motorized travel at all in others it is severely restricted to a select few open roads and 0 off road use) and in the places you can camp it's highly restrictive (MT for example only recently lifted the 48 hour limit on camping. You still can only camp 100 yards from an access point). In WY, Trust lands are some of the most heaviliy restricted lands in terms of public usage.

There is no FLPMA, NEPA or other statute regulating use of the state trust lands of Wyoming either. There is general direction based on the constitution, and guidance from the OSLI, Gov's office & Legislature, etc. But the public has zero legal option to protect their voice in how that land is managed.

So it's not public land, with a multiple use mandate that puts recreation on the same level as other uses. It's not owned by the public either, it is owned by the State Government and managed not for the people, but some very specific uses.

 

[Deleted member 18333]

Has it even been determined IF this were to come to fruition that these lands would be classified as State Trust Lands? I don't think it has. This idea is still in its infancy. Cat can holler that the State has not been transparent but i think it has more to due with the State doesn't know what they are going to do yet. This purchase is an idea. The Governor thinks its a good idea but even he isn't certain. It takes time to fully flesh out these ideas and that is what is taking place. At this point the only thing the Governor needs to be transparent about is that he is looking into the purchase. Because that's the only concrete idea he has.

Further, the idea that the State shouldn't do this deal because you cant camp or build a fire on State Trust lands is foolish. IMO, its as foolish as using that point in regards to the PLT argument. While I do not support a transfer of public lands to the States in any way, does anyone honestly think if it were to happen that would be the end of camping and camp fires in the State of Wyoming? I'm confident the State could an would figure out a way to allow camping on State owned land.

 

[TOGIE]

Further, the idea that the State shouldn't do this deal because you cant camp or build a fire on State Trust lands is foolish.

maybe i missed it, but i don't think anyone was making that argument

 

[Deleted member 18333]

maybe i missed it, but i don't think anyone was making that argument

This was part of what I took from Cats article tying her concerns about the State purchase of Oxy land and how Wyo manages ST lands. Perhaps I read too much into it.

 

[TOGIE]

i would think she is generally trying to quell a potentially popular notion that the state should do this because you can hunt and hike and fish on state lands. she may have a plethora of personal reasons too as to why not...

and i'm sure many reasonable people would agree. that's truly not solely a good enough reason to do this.

of course, i sure damn well wish they would for those reasons.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Cat Urbigkit: House Approps Reworks State Land Deal Bill

On Monday the House Appropriations Committee worked until after 9 p.m. to make substantial revisions to House Bill 249 that enables Governor Mark Gordon…

cowboystatedaily.com

Sounds like there was a big effort to clean up the bill. Sounds like it's becoming something a little better.

And to be clear, Cat is no advocate for access. She has her bias, but I appreciate her style even though I don't agree with her. I don't see many others covering this as in-depth as she is.

 

[SAJ-99]

I'd assume it will be valued at PDP cash flow to 10-15 years, no credit given for surface or minerals, with the upside for the state being grazing and other activities.

Talked with a group of industry people about this deal last weekend and everyone was cracking up at the 500 million price tag. General sentiment was that 100 million would be a stretch and no one thought it had a snowballs chance in hell.

No one had insider info on the deal or the asset, I've just giving some perspective on what some grey hairs in the industry thought about it.

At $100m, DONE. You don't get a second chance and the seller is distressed.

 

[SAJ-99]

Also, someone mentioned that it couldn't go into the same land-bank managed by State Land Trust. Not familiar with WY, anyone with info on that?

 

[BuzzH]

Also, someone mentioned that it couldn't go into the same land-bank managed by State Land Trust. Not familiar with WY, anyone with info on that?

I've not seen anything that says the lands couldn't be State Trust Lands. But, I talked with JM77 about this issue and between us, we cant find statute that mentions anything regarding amount of State Trust Lands that can be held. There was some DIRECTION given by the legislature to OSLI that State Trust Lands should be capped at 3.1 million acres +/- 10K acres.

Still researching a lot about this deal...lots of questions still.

 

[Pucky Freak]

It's not owned by the public either, it is owned by the State Government and managed not for the people, but some very specific uses.

The public elects the state government. All government assets are public assets. It's owned by the public. I work for the government. I don't own my desk, the pens in my office, the paper I print things on, my computer, cell phone, or any material item I use at work.

Just because it is owned by the public does not mean the public can use it for whatever they want, or even set foot on it. The publicly elected representatives set it aside for a particular use. Even so, this is still only at the will of the public, subject to change by election of new representatives, and or changes to the state statute or state constitution.

 

[Ben Lamb]

The public elects the state government. All government assets are public assets. It's owned by the public. I work for the government. I don't own my desk, the pens in my office, the paper I print things on, my computer, cell phone, or any material item I use at work.

Just because it is owned by the public does not mean the public can use it for whatever they want, or even set foot on it. The publicly elected representatives set it aside for a particular use. Even so, this is still only at the will of the public, subject to change by election of new representatives, and or changes to the state statute or state constitution.

The difference here is that public land is not owned by the Federal Gov't. It's owned by the citizens of the United States and held in trust to be managed by the Gov't. Big difference between public land and state trust land.

 

[SAJ-99]

Sure, but there is a bigger difference between being owned by Occidental and being State Trust land. No?