America’s Public Lands: A Tug-of-War Between States and the Feds

What Happened?

A total of 12 states have joined a lawsuit started by Utah, which could transfer millions of acres of federally owned land to state control.

Utah has argued that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) cannot retain its current ownership of land in Utah unless it designates it as a national park, monument, or something of similar status. Should their lawsuit be successful, the case could have a substantial impact on large swaths of land throughout the country.

The Bureau of Land Management oversees roughly 245 million acres of federal land in the United States. This accounts for roughly 10.5% of the total land mass in the U.S. as a whole. In addition, they also manage 700 million acres of subsurface mineral estate.

At the heart of Utah's lawsuit is its claim that federal land ownership hinders state sovereignty while simultaneously diverting financial resources that could otherwise benefit the state.

Opponents of the lawsuit, which include environmental and hunting groups, warn that this move would jeopardize public land access for Americans, as well as lead to privatization or development into housing or commercial real estate.

Why it Matters

This isn’t the first time the issue has been brought to light, and likely won't be the last.

Utah has taken the approach of making the case a ‘state's rights’ issue and wants autonomy over land that they think is better suited to be administered at the state level. Supporters have argued that since the land is under federal control, it stifles local autonomy and stunts economic potential and that the land is better suited to be managed at the state level.

Critics of the lawsuit have argued that transferring lands out of federal control could result in their sale, privatization, or even industrial development, which would ultimately compromise public access and environmental stewardship.

The case raises consequential questions regarding the state's capacity to manage the vast swaths of land currently under BLM ownership. For example, wildfires are an ongoing problem for many of the western states.

A small wildfire (less than 100 acres) typically costs BLM $1 million to $5 million. Large wildfires can cost between $10 million to over $100 million. The U.S. Forest Service and BLM spend over $2 billion annually to fight wildfires.

Should individual states wrestle control of federal lands back into their control, would they be able to adequately fund wildfire management? Doing so would almost certainly have colossal effects on state budgets and more than likely require an increase in state and local taxes, which is never a popular topic.

Furthermore, many states must balance their budgets every year and can’t carry over deficits into the next fiscal year. Utah and Alaska are two states with such requirements, and they are also both states with an abundance of federally managed land.

While the federal government can still operate while in a deficit, it is unclear how states independently managing their lands would administer land management while operating under a budget.

How it Affects You

The U.S. Supreme Court’s involvement would be significant given its conservative supermajority, which might favor state rights over federal control. However, as of now, the Court hasn’t decided whether to hear the case.

Should federal lands be transferred to state control, public access may be in jeopardy. While proponents claim state management would improve the economic benefits and local governance, history would suggest that the land would be sold or developed, which would limit public opportunities for hunting, fishing, and other outdoor recreational activities.

As this case progresses and more states possibly follow suit, the public's access to these lands alongside the broader implications for state versus federal authority will remain at the forefront of this climactic legal battle.