EMBARGOED FOR RELEASE UNTIL 4:00 P.M. E.S.T.

ENR
FRIDAY, JULY 28, 1995 (202) 514-2008
TDD (202) 514-1888

UNITED STATES ASKS COURT TO REAFFIRM OWNERSHIP OF PUBLIC LANDS

OPEN ARGUMENTS HEARD IN U.S. V. NYE COUNTY, NEVADA

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Citing an "unbroken line" of legal precedent,

the United States today asked a District Court in Las Vegas,
Nevada to strike down a controversial county resolution that has
challenged the United States' ownership and management of public
lands and threatened the ability of government employees to do
their jobs. The request came during oral argument in a lawsuit
filed by the United States against Nye County, Nevada.

"Nye County has enacted resolutions claiming ownership and

management rights over the federal public lands, and taken
confrontational actions implementing these resolutions," argued
Peter Coppelman, the Department's Deputy Assistant Attorney
General for the Environment and Natural Resources Division. "The
United States asks this Court to remove any possible doubt about
the United States' right to own and manage the national parks,
forests, refuges, and rangelands that are held in trust for all
our citizens."

The United States filed suit against Nye County on March 8,

1994. It did so following Nye County challenges to United States
control and management of federal lands. In 1993, Nye County
Commissioners approved a resolution that claims the State of
Nevada, not the United States, owns national forests and other
federal lands. Under this claim, Nye County would therefore have
the authority to manage these lands. Another resolution claimed
ownership of virtually every road and trail on federal lands
within the county boundaries.

Using these resolutions for shelter, Nye County has

threatened United States employees with criminal prosecution and
other legal action for implementing federal laws. In addition,
the county has bulldozed open National Forest roads closed by the
Forest Service, and damaged natural and archaeological resources.
"Nye County's resolutions and actions based upon these
resolutions have not only been aggressive and confrontational,
but flatly unconstitutional as well," said Lois J. Schiffer,
Assistant Attorney General for the Environment Division. "We
welcome local participation in land management decisions. What
we do not welcome and will not tolerate are illegal actions that
hinder or threaten the ability of government employees to do
their jobs."

Among the arguments made by Coppelman, on behalf of the

United States:

þ The "Property Clause of the Constitution authorizes the

federal government to retain and manage lands within States
for the benefit of all citizens. In an unbroken line of
precedent spanning over 150 years, the Supreme Court has
held that the power over the public land entrusted to
 Congress...is 'without limitation.'"

þ Nye County arguments -- specifically that the Constitution's

Equal Footing Doctrine authorized its actions -- have no
legal merit and fly in the face of Supreme Court precedent.
þ The consequences of accepting Nye County's argument would be
severe. "In effect, the County asks this Court to redraw
the map of the United States, and to rewrite 150 years of
American history...Under Nye's theory there would be almost
no national parks, national forests, national wildlife
refuges, wilderness areas."

Nye County is one of dozens of counties, mainly in the West,

that have challenged federal control of public lands. This
movement is often referred to as the "County Supremacy" or
"Sagebrush Rebellion II" or "Home Rule" movement. The movement
has suffered a number of recent legal setbacks, as several court
decisions have backed the position of the United States.

GARDNER V. STAGER -- A June 29, 1995 decision by a District Court

in Reno, Nevada dismissed an attempt by ranchers, Cliff and
Bertha Gardner, to gain grazing rights and water rights in
Humboldt National Forest without complying with federal law. In
doing so, the Court held that such claims "reflect a lack of
research into the most basic legal concepts and principles
applicable to this case, and...are directly contradicted by an
unbroken line of Supreme Court precedent...If they believe the
federal government is acting unfairly or unwisely, the
appropriate course of action is to take the complaint to their
elected representatives in Congress."

U.S. V. MEDENBACH -- A May 9, 1995 decision by a District Court

in Oregon, involving a civil trespass action, found that "the
United States, acting through the Department of Interior, Bureau
of Land Management, is the owner and manager of certain public
lands located in Klamath County." The Court went on to say that
"the United States retains and manages these lands pursuant to
its powers under the Constitution, primarily the Property
Clause."

BOUNDARY BACKPACKERS V. BOUNDARY COUNTY -- In an Idaho case

concerning the constitutionality of county ordinances, a State
court ruled that "the federal government is empowered to regulate
federal lands by the property clause of the Constitution...This
applies to all federal lands and waterways...The United States
Supreme Court has repeatedly held that Congress' power under the
property clause is exclusive, without limitation, and free from
state interference"

###

95-420