February 23, 2012

"We are not able to fund our education as well as we could if we had more private land." -Governor Herbert

GOVERNOR HERBERT: Good morning.

KEN VERDOIA, KUED-7: Good morning, Governor. Thanks for joining us today. You've been critical of what you see as the Federal disregard for the management of public lands in the State of Utah, and now there's an aggressive push in the State legislature to force the issue of management of those lands, demanding, in effect, the Federal government to return those lands to the control of the State of Utah, certainly to lead to a complicated and expensive legal battle. Is that a battle you're willing to take on?

GOVERNOR HERBERT: Well, I've been critical of the Federal government on many different areas, mainly the overreach into state sovereignty and some of the, I think, irrational regulations and obligations they've tried to enforce upon states, Medicaid, healthcare reform, those kinds of issues.

The public land debate is a little bit different. And, in fact, I'm going to Washington, D.C. this weekend as part of the National Governor's Association, in fact, to meet with the Department of Interior and talk about our public land issues here in Utah, our need to have more opportunity to lease land for oil and natural gas drilling, again kind of following up on what President Obama said in his State of the Nation address, by the way.

We're also going to be meeting with the Department of Agriculture, talking about our forests and forest and agricultural needs in Utah. We're meeting with the Department of Energy and talking about what we're doing with our ten-year energy plan in Utah and how we can work more collaboratively together to help develop America's resources, and Utah being at the forefront of being able to develop energy.

And, also, I'm meeting with director, Lisa Jackson, and her folks at the EPA to talk about air quality issues, which are a part and parcel of our ability to, in fact, develop our natural resources, our energy, particularly that in the Uinta Basin. So there's going to be a lot of discussion on public lands.

It's been a long history of the discussion with our interface with Federal government and the management of the public lands, and in the west we are kind of unique, and certainly in Utah, where we have less than 25 percent of our land mass is privately owned property. And it has unique challenges for us and it's inhibited our ability to develop commerce and develop revenue streams. And the most notable area where we have a shortcoming on that is education. We are not able to fund our education as well as we could if we had more private land.

So it's been an ongoing discussion. I've been involved with this issue since the mid-90s when I was a county commissioner. It's an ongoing discussion. And we'll see if we can't find some resolution to some of the debate that's going on out there right now.

JOSH LOFTIN, ASSOCIATED PRESS: Governor, are you -- you're very proactive about working with the Federal government on a number of issues, immigration, public lands being one, air quality, Uinta Basin, working on the studies out there. The State has also shown that they're willing to go to court to fight for what they think is right.

Is a bill that basically guarantees a lawsuit that takes the Federal end, is that the best approach in dealing with public lands, another lawsuit, or is it better to continue to push resolutions, send letters, and just try to get something resolved politically?

GOVERNOR HERBERT: Well, I think all approaches are on the table. I think it's not just one at the exclusion of others, I think we try to do everything we can with negotiation. That's the first option.

I think the second option is we do everything we can with legislation and, for example, our Washington County lands bill was a perfect example of legislation we all worked on together with all stakeholders, took it to Congress and had Congress pass legislation. But litigation has got to be on the table.

There's some times when we have differences of opinion, and the only way we can resolve those differences, where we can't do it by negotiation or by legislation, is to litigate and have the courts make a decision. And some of the public land issues are going to have to be litigated, whether it be our RS2477 roads and rights of way, which we have filed notice of litigation on, whether it's our approach of saying, you've gone around the Congress, this administration with their wildlands designation, and we've said we're going to sue you on that and that litigation is still pending, but they've since backed off because of the litigation, or whether it's on the fact that when we became a state there was an obligation, part of the enabling clause to, in fact, dispose of lands that were not privately owned and put them into private hands with, in fact, an agreement that five percent of those proceeds would be given to the State. That's never happened. That's part of the discussion we're having today. And I think it's a worthwhile discussion and we'll see where it leads us.

MAX ROTH, FOX-13: Governor, the Natural Resources Committee chair, Mike Noel, considers that Washington County compromise which you talked about as a positive, he considers that an overreach by the county, and he actually put a bill through committee already that would say that the State legislature could veto such a compromise, that local governments should not have the authority to enter into that kind of negotiation without the State legislature's approval. What do you think about that? Do you think that the State has the authority to tell a county that it cannot do that sort of thing?

GOVERNOR HERBERT: I do think the State has the authority to do that. I think that's part of our constitutional make-up as a state. Counties -- and I'm a former county commissioner so I have a great love for our counties -- are, you know, subdivisions of the state, created by the state. So state sovereignty and state rights would say that we have the right as a state to say what we will do and what we will not do in relationship with the Federal government.

Now, that being said, I don't want this to be made into like there's some big divide between county elected officials, county commissioners and what they're trying to do in conjunction with the state legislature, because I think they have the same goal and objective. But the state has to kind of, in essence, sign off on it. But the heavy lifting and all the hard work's being done by the county commissioners and getting all the data, the information, the testimony as far as what are traditional and historical roads and rights of way that we've had for the last generations, they're doing the work and they have a lot to say about it. It's not the legislature. At the end of the day, they will present to the legislature, here's what our thinking is and let's create legislation for Congress to agree to, but the State legislature should in fact sign off as a state in that process.

DAN BAMMES, KUER: Governor, House Bill 148 is one of these package of bills on public lands that we've been talking about and it has a legislative review note that says there's a high probability it would be found unconstitutional. So the simple question becomes, should our legislature be passing bills that a reasonable observer says are unconstitutional?

GOVERNOR HERBERT: Well, that's a process, you know, I think it's debatable whether it's Constitutional or not. And, again, we have differences of opinion, and maybe the majority of opinion thinks it is unconstitutional; there's a minority of opinion that thinks it's not. We've passed an unconstitutional law that said that the State of Utah would reject the Patient Protection Affordable Care Act. It actually ended up leading us to have standing in the Florida court decision where we challenged the mandate, the Affordable Care Act, which we think is a violation of the Constitution, and we were able to be a part and parcel of that discussion debate, and the judge even cited our law. So that had a constitutional note too, but we forged ahead anyway thinking it was an important issue to be a part of and to get standing in and to be able to be part of the litigation on this unconstitutional aspect.

So, again, I think that's part of debate. But the fact that there's a constitutional law should not itself disqualify us from moving ahead.

ROBERT GEHRKE, SALT LAKE TRIBUNE: So if I can drill down on this a little bit, do you think that the Federal government should cedw Federal lands back to Utah, and, if -- should Utah make that demand, and, if the Federal government fails to do it, should we go to court to pursue that?

GOVERNOR HERBERT: I think that needs to be, in fact, pursued. It's clear as you read the Enabling Act when we became a state that the Federal government agreed to take lands that were not owned privately and take them and, for the very direct purpose of disposal, they were going to, in fact, sell them off, and proceeds of that sale was going to be given to the State of Utah. They have done that in virtually every state from the east to the Rocky Mountains. Now, why they have not completed their part of the bargain, their part of the agreement is probably everybody's wonderment. Maybe nobody wanted to buy them, maybe we're not as aggressive back then being concerned about them as we are today when we find out that we have great, you know, detriment for our economic development.

I mean, private lands gives you opportunity for economic development, and we're probably underperforming because there are more public lands. That's not necessarily a bad thing in all instances because the multiple use aspect of our BLM is something we ought to, I think, continually pursue. We worry that things are getting too much one sided.

So, again, I think the Federal government needs to answer to the question why have you not disposed of the property? It's been to our economic detriment, and we ought to get an answer to that. And if that means we go to court ultimately, then so be it.

ROBERT GEHRKE, SALT LAKE TRIBUNE: The part Ken Ivory's bill would include transferring national parks, the State would then be able to give them back to the Federal government with the provisions that it -- whatever conditions it decides to impose, you support that aspect of --

GOVERNOR HERBERT: Well, and I haven't had a chance to look at all aspects of the bill, it's not through the process yet, so it would be a little premature for me to comment on all aspects of this bill. I'm talking about the concept.

ROBERT GEHRKE, SALT LAKE TRIBUNE: Okay.

GOVERNOR HERBERT: And the concept is that the Federal government said, We will dispose of the property. They never did. Part of our enabling act, and so they've just decided unilaterally saying, Well, we're going to breach the contract. We need to find out why, and if there is some recourse and some form of compensation they ought to give to us for that breach of contract. That's the concept that we ought to pursue. I don't think that we want to, as a state, take over -- or excuse me, have development of our national parks and our wilderness areas, those ought to be preserved, and my understanding is that that's what the legislature is thinking also. So we'll see where this legislation goes and what it develops. It could be amended, modified, whether it even comes to my desk, I guess we'll have to wait and see. But the concept of the Federal government fulfilling their obligation is a sound one.

JOSH LOFTIN, ASSOCIATED PRESS: Do you support the hard deadline of 2014 that's in the bill?

GOVERNOR HERBERT: Yeah, I think you pick a deadline, it gives us a chance to have negotiation, discussion, and understand where each side is on the issue. And, in fact, having a hard deadline will maybe force the discussion. I also have heard from Senator Mike Lee that he, in fact, thinks this will help him in the negotiation and discussion on public land issues back in Washington. So I think our congressional delegation can use this as some sort of leverage, again, to foster discussion, negotiation, maybe legislation, and avoid litigation.

JOSH LOFTIN, ASSOCIATED PRESS: Other states are considering basically identical bills, Arizona, I've heard Wyoming and Idaho may be pursuing it as well. Does it help to have other states passing similar things in the same way that the healthcare --

GOVERNOR HERBERT: Sure. There's no question, if you have more united voices out there that, again, there's some more legitimacy to the issue and more need for having some kind of reconciliation to the issue. I'm the vice chairman of the Western Governor's Association, and we have a number of states that are concerned about this issue and are looking to see what happens, what we're doing trying to decide whether they should jump on board. I'm going to have hopefully here by the end of, middle part of April, what we call a Rocky Mountain roundup, which is going to bring the governors from the surrounding states of Utah, starting with Montana on the top, and having Wyoming, Idaho, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and Arizona, all coming to Salt Lake City and talking about some of these public land issues, that they impact us all dramatically in the Intermountain West. And it could be known as the public lands issues, the endangered species, natural resource, energy development, things that are kind of common to all of us. If we can, in fact, come together in a bipartisan fashion, I think our arguments are much stronger and more likely to be received well in Washington, D.C.

JOHN DALEY, KSL-5: Governor, a lot of discussion regarding these issues revolves around local control. Similar local control questions come up for cities regarding things that they're interested in working on, like billboards or idling, air quality, an issue you've also been working on yourself. Should cities have local control over some of those issues, and how do you intend to respond to the legislation on those two things? Will you sign those bills, if they get to you?

GOVERNOR HERBERT: Well, maybe I’m biased because I was once a county commissioner and a local government official. I'm not much into top-down micromanagement of any form. I think closer to the people bottom up is a much better way to reflect the wishes and the will of the people. And so I'm a local control guy. And I think that local mayors and city councils and county commissioners are reflective of the people, and if the people don't like what they're doing, they generally will get replaced with somebody else who does reflect the will of the people. That's the process.

I know as states we kind of rail against, and I've been a loud railer, you know, of the government's overreach and micromanaging, telling Utah and other states how to do things on a one-size-fits-all basis, and I think it's a little bit hypocritical for us to turn around and do the same thing to the locals.

Now, there is a difference, and I understand the difference. You know, we are a sovereign state, United States of America, with a strong, centralized government that we work in partnership with. Local governments, counties and cities are creations of the state, so the state is the parent and the counties and the cities are, in fact, the children. So there's a little different relationship.

But the principle of bottom up, government closest to the people that reflects the people, I think, is a sound one and we, as a state, ought to respect that and give local control and virtually -- I'd say not in every instance, but in most instances.

JESSICA GALE, KCPW: Will you sign those bills, if they come to your desk?

GOVERNOR HERBERT: Depends on what they say, you know, what they do, and the issue at hand. There are some areas where we don't want to have states having more severe and strict laws and regulations than what the state does. We are the state, we are the sovereign, and so it would be inappropriate, probably unconstitutional, certainly in principle, to have a state or a -- excuse me, a city have stronger, for example, gun control, than we have as a state. But, again, when it comes to billboards and zoning laws, we ought to let the local people make those decisions.

MAX ROTH, FOX-13: What about school boards and sex education? Because that was such a big issue just yesterday, the house voted --

GOVERNOR HERBERT: School boards and sex education together?

MAX ROTH, FOXNEWS-13: Yes, yes. Well, I'm talking about local control.

GOVERNOR HERBERT: Okay. I thought -- MAX ROTH, FOXNEWS-13: I'm talking about House Bill 363.

GOVERNOR HERBERT: -- billboard or sex education. [Laughter] MAX ROTH, FOXNEWS-13: Not billboards and sex education, that would be a unique proposal. But talking about House Bill 363, which just passed the State House yesterday, which would make Utah schools or school boards choose to either teach abstinence only, not instructing at all on contraception, or no sex education at all. Should that be a law? Do you believe that that should be the state's policy? Should the State tell school boards, let's say, tell a Salt Lake City school board that that is the decision -- that's the only decision they can make?

GOVERNOR HERBERT: Well, first, Max, as you all know, this is a very emotional issue and you probably have got a variety of opinions on what should be taught in school when it comes to sex education. One, the school board does, the State school board does set the curriculum for the State and for all the districts, and so that's probably the principle involved here, and the State has and does have that responsibility. But I would say it this way: One, I think parents have the responsibility, first and foremost. They ought not to get away from that responsibility and pass it on to somebody else. When it comes to sex education, parents and guardians are the primary source of information to make sure that your children get the information you think they need to have.

Secondly, I'm for parent choice. I think parents ought to have the right to choose how they give that sex education and where they give it. And I think our system has actually worked pretty well so far in that regard. But abstinence-only is something that ought to be taught. It really is the best way, I think, for a lot of reasons. That's going to be the debate. We'll see what comes with the proposed legislation as it bubbles through, I think again it could be amended, modified, changed, and we'll have to wait and see what happens there.

MAX ROTH, FOX-13: But if a local school district -- if a local school district feels like they have a problem on their hands and there have been problems with sexually transmitted diseases, the health department's looked at in Utah County, where you were a county commissioner so I'm sure you were aware at the time, and if they feel like there's a problem they need to address, should they have the ability to address that or --

GOVERNOR HERBERT: Well, I think -- yes, the system we have in place does allow them to address that and even with -- although you cannot, with the proposals, as I understand it, advocate contraception, they certainly can advocate abstinence only, which is the only sure way, and so that understanding and advocacy can still be taught. Parents in their homes can talk about other options and other alternatives. That's where the focus ought to be. We ought not to turn that very serious responsibility over to the government.

ROBERT GEHRKE, SALT LAKE TRIBUNE: So I want to make sure I understand what you're saying. Are you saying that they should teach abstinence only and contraception, or they should just teach --

GOVERNOR HERBERT: No, no, I'm saying that the bill, as I understand it, is going to be one to teach abstinence only.

ROBERT GEHRKE, SALT LAKE TRIBUNE: Right.

GOVERNOR HERBERT: And that certainly is -- I applaud that, I think abstinence only should be taught. The question is whether there should be anything taught about contraception and whether my children will be involved in that discussion, maybe I don't want them to hear that part of the discussion.

ROBERT GEHRKE, SALT LAKE TRIBUNE: As I understand it right now, it's an opt-in, parents can opt in to learn more about contraception.

GOVERNOR HERBERT: Uh-huh, which I think has worked well for us.

ROBERT GEHRKE, SALT LAKE TRIBUNE: And the bill would not, as I understand it, have the opt-in. So do you support doing away with the contraception instruction in school or do you think that should remain an option for parents?

GOVERNOR HERBERT: What I'm saying is that I understand that the emphasis should be on parents and guardians teaching whatever they want to teach on their sex education. That is where the responsibility should be, first and foremost. Too many parents are walking away from that responsibility and saying, Let the government teach my kids. I think that's the wrong approach. And if, in fact -- again, we don't know what the bill's going to end up saying. I understand the approach is abstinence only, we'll have to wait and see what comes of that.

ROBERT GEHRKE, SALT LAKE TRIBUNE: Did you teach your children sex ed?

GOVERNOR HERBERT: Absolutely.

DAN BAMMES, KUER: We're just now seeing new proposals come out in the session for reform at the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, it would include expanding the board, allowing the governor to appoint the director of the department. Do these proposals go as far as they need to with reform at DABC?

GOVERNOR HERBERT: You know, my number one concern was making sure we had oversight and accountability, that has not been involved in the system we've had in the past. And as I've mentioned before, there's probably two or three different ways that we can get oversight and accountability. The proposal, as I understand it, and we are in fact now in the process of reviewing the legislation, I think does provide some accountability and oversight at levels we have not had before; expanding the commission, having assignments given to respective commissioners as far as what their areas of responsibility will be, and placing an individual as an independent audit to make sure that accountability for the monies and processes for procurement are taking place appropriately. So I feel good about the direction and what it does. I think that's the number one concern I have, and I'll take a look at the legislation in more details as we review it.

ROBERT GEHRKE, SALT LAKE TRIBUNE: One of the things they didn't touch on is any of the licensing issues that, you know, the State's up against, the cap and some of its licenses. There are bills that would increase that cap. Do you think that should be done?

GOVERNOR HERBERT: I think it needs to be reviewed. Again, I'm a free market person, I think we need to have, in fact, allowances that reflect the demands of the marketplace. That's probably going to be an ongoing discussion, whether there needs to be more licenses, for restaurants, in particular. I know there's a concern of maybe do we have enough licenses for the local bars, and what should be the appropriate number that would be out there. So I think that's going to be an ongoing discussion. I'm not sure it will be resolved in this legislative session, but I expect it will be brought up, if not, in 2013.

JOHN DALEY, KSL-5: Governor, you've been talking about accountability for this one agency. If you look at kind of the big-picture question, you look at the -- what's going on in the presidential race, this year's an election year for you and many others here in Utah, there's more and more money in the political system than we've seen ever. What sort of safeguards, what kind of -- do you think that's a problem, A? And, B, what kind of safeguards, protections, should the system start to look at to try to reign in some of the influence of all that money over policy making, decision making, et cetera?

GOVERNOR HERBERT: Well, I do support openness and transparency. I think that's got to be first and foremost, as far as anything we do with campaigns and government. Openness and transparency. I've never been one to advocate for limits on contributions to candidates. I think that inhibits, in fact, people's free speech as defined by the Supreme Court, and the ability for you to speak by use of your money and get a message out there is an important aspect. If we don't do that, if we limit, then we kind of open ourselves up to only the rich that can self-fund, that have the ability to compete, and particularly big-time politics. That being said, I think all of us are dismayed about the super PACs which have no accountability, the candidate has no accountability, no ability to discuss their message in what they're doing, in their behalf and sometimes it becomes, I think, counterproductive to the candidate. I'd much rather have those people that are taking money into the super PAC give that money to the candidate so that the candidate themselves can develop whatever message they want to devise and be held accountable for that message rather than say, Well, it wasn't me, it was the other guys. And so I think that's something that probably on a Federal level after this presidential campaign probably will be looked at.

ROBERT GEHRKE, SALT LAKE TRIBUNE: Another political question. There was -- we've seen calls recently, efforts to organize people to come out to the caucuses from the realtors, the chamber, the LDS Church. Is there an effort to try to temper the move of the caucus, do you think, and does that need to be done?

GOVERNOR HERBERT: Well, I don't know what the motivations of any of those organizations are, I think they've always -- this is not news to any of us that have been involved in the political arena, there's always been probably an effort to try to get people to come up to the caucuses. And, frankly, our system, which is unique in the country, is better served with more people showing up. It's supposed to be representative government and these delegates should be representative of the neighborhoods, and the more of the neighborhoods' people that show up, the more likely they'll get delegates that represent the neighborhoods and represent the people of Utah. And whether that's republican caucus or democrat caucus, I would invite everybody to show up and make sure that delegates that you like represent you and the neighborhoods.

KEN VERDOIA, KUED: So no particular concerns that a small vocal minority could gain control of a process and steer the outcome of party nominations, for example?

GOVERNOR HERBERT: Well, I think there's always the worry that only the zealots would show up, it could be on the left or the right. And, again, that's why our system lends itself to better outcomes if we have more people participate, so that those extremes on the left or the right don't take sway. But I like the delegate system. Hey, I'm the governor today, I think in large part because of the delegate system. I was not rich and I was not famous and I had to do it the old-fashioned way of kind of working through the delegate system and got some traction with people who liked what I had to say and my background and experience and what I brought to the table. And without the delegate system, I don't think I would be the governor here today. So I'm one that likes the system and would like to see it continue. But it works best when more people participate, and if we can get 20 or 30 percent of our population to show up at the neighborhood caucuses, we'll have a good outcome in representing the people of Utah.

KEN VERDOIA, KUED: We only have about 30 seconds left. Are you concerned about the candidacy of Mitt Romney for the GOP nomination? You've been a supporter of his. Is he stumbling a little bit at this time?

GOVERNOR HERBERT: You know, there's no campaign that's ever run perfect. I think Mitt is the right guy with the right background. He's the only executive running, think about that. We're running for the chief executive office in the land, and he's the only executive running. Not only in private sector experience, but turning around the Olympics, and been a governor. That's why historically we've elected governors in the past. I think he's the right guy for the job today.

KEN VERDOIA, KUED: Governor, thank you for your time. Remember, the transcripts are available on line. Thanks for joining us.  

Return to home page