Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Jurisdiction topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Rancher tells committee federal agencies lack title to much Arizona land, urges legal review
Summary
Daniel Martinez briefed the Federalism Committee on constitutional and statutory arguments he said limit federal ownership and jurisdiction over lands in Arizona, citing Title 40 definitions, 16 U.S.C. and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act.
Daniel Martinez, identified in the meeting as a lifelong rancher, told the Arizona Senate Federalism Committee that federal agencies do not own much of the land in Arizona and that federal jurisdiction over state lands is limited by constitutional and statutory provisions.
Martinez argued that Article IV, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution (the Property Clause) grants Congress authority to dispose of federal territory but does not transfer ownership of state lands to the federal government. “The federal government doesn’t own this land,” Martinez said, and he pointed committee members to provisions in Title 40 of the U.S. Code, to 16 U.S.C. § 480 and to Title 18 when describing special maritime and territorial jurisdiction.
He told senators he had tried litigation and county intervention in past local disputes and described a 1956 intergovernmental report he cited as supportive of state authority over lands the federal government administers. Martinez said he believes federal agencies such as the Forest Service and BLM have improperly asserted regulatory and police powers over lands where, in his view, the state retains civil and criminal jurisdiction. “If you read that 1 section, 106 of Title 40, it defines it. And it does not include the forest reserves,” Martinez said.
Why it matters: Martinez asked the committee to review federal-state land relationships and noted remedies available in Title 40 (he cited section 123) for alleged fraud. He also said some agencies lack delegated authority to manage lands and that recent federal rulemaking claiming enforcement of state statutes on federal lands is improper.
Committee chair Mark Finchem and members asked legal and procedural questions. Finchem noted the committee lacks subpoena power but said the president of the Senate does have that authority. Martinez told senators he had previously subpoenaed state officials in a New Mexico case and described outcomes in which he said the state attorney dismissed the matter when compelled to testify.
Several senators asked Martinez to remain available for follow-up; Finchem said committee staff would circulate Martinez’s compiled citations and materials (which Martinez said include US Code citations down to section level). No formal committee action was taken during the Jan. 24 meeting.
Ending: Martinez’s presentation focused on statutory citations and historical practice; the committee received the materials and did not vote on legislation at the Jan. 24 hearing. Members indicated interest in further review and potential future questions.
