Denver Post: Federal government has no right to keep portion of mineral royalty payments

We couldn't agree more with the Denver Post, which notes in an editorial today (July 11) that mineral royalties paid to states by the federal government should not be subject to "sequestration" cuts.

As the Post noted: "The Budget Control Act was meant to trim federal spending. But a tax transfer to states enshrined in law decades ago to offset the impact of mineral development is not in any normal sense a federal expenditure." (Read the editorial.)

The editorial cites the letter sent in May by the Western Governors' Association to Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, as well as the Department of the Interior and the Office of Management and Budget. In that letter, Western Governors expressed alarm over the cuts and noted:

"States’ statutorily-guaranteed share of mineral royalty, bonus bid, rental and other receipts is not the equivalent of a standard federal expenditure. Any comparison between a mineral receipt transfer and an appropriated expenditure is fundamentally flawed." (Read our letter.)

Our letter concluded: "Western Governors request that the Departments and OMB provide us a clear, complete and expedited response to the questions posed in this letter." To date, we have not received a response.

Other coverage:

Colorado Attorney General John Suthers: Mineral lease sequester "unlawful." Story

The Washington Times reported on the cuts. Story

The Daily Caller also reported on Western opposition to the cuts. Story