As Maine goes, so goes the nation.
Maybe that’s the part I don’t get. If she owned the land then how would (or did) the state control it?
It was tax revenue and now it is not, State looses.
I think she should be able to do what she did but I think the State should either put it to the same protected status or else the Feds should have to pay a one time fee to the State because X number of citizens of the state are loosing a long established use of said land, and $$$ actually. It is not desert with no view and won’t grow nor posses anything anyone wants. Still have to pay if individual land owner wants to give it to the feds but the amount won’t be argued about so much/long.
It is never about control in this type of thing but about money…
If it was in New Hampshire, I would bet on them. Maine, not so much. They are not mean enough. 
There are often Payment in Lieu of Taxes programs that offset loss of taxable income. Maine currently receives about $300K per year, not sure if that will go up next year based on this new National Monument. By contrast NH (with a large national forest) gets close to $2 million per year and California gets $45 million. You can even break it down by county but I’m not sure which counties are involved here.
Thanks, I did not know that. :smack:
Do the feds make the state whole or is it more of a token payment?
I have no idea of the actual amounts in cases like this. :dubious: