Straight Arrow--
The move to state ownership is something I am personally against. The land belongs to all Americans and with state ownership, there's no guarantee lands will stay accessible for all.
An economic report finished in 2015 made arguments that the state could afford to manage and finance the land takeover by collecting 100% of the royalty currently split between the Feds and state. The problem is the price assumptions that were made to fund state management. They are high for both current oil and natural gas prices, and there is no back up if those royalties don't cover costs--even if more wells are added.
This said, rural Utah has a point about economic development. There are 12 "red rock" counties (my count) that are clearly rural and have not shared in the bounty that Utah has reaped economically in the past 35 or so years and especially in the past five to seven. Rural counties median age goes up, population goes down, school funding deteriorates with reduced tax base, and we as a state have done a terrible job of finding gainful and diverse employment for these areas. I love the $12 billion tourism brings to our state, and that money is unequally distributed. We exist in two states--urban and rural. One wealthy, one not. Our state has to do a better job of economic development for these areas--and tourism is not the simple nor singular answer. Transferring all the land to the state won't grow these rural economies. There has to be multiple solutions.
