The federal government owns large tracts of land in Western states that date back to the founding of the country. Over time, the federal government shifted from encouraging settlement of these lands and transferring them to private ownership to directly managing them for various public purposes. This caused discontent among some Western states that led to the Sagebrush Rebellion in the late 1970s, which sought to force the federal government to transfer ownership of the lands to the states through legal challenges and other means. However, the federal government has retained ownership of most of these lands based on its constitutional authority over federal property.

1. PUBLIC LANDS
The Council of State Governments 459
History of Public Lands
Federal ownership of large tracts of land goes
back to the founding of the United States. As part
of the formation of the nation, the original 13 colo-
nies turned over the lands west of the Appalachian
Mountains and east of the Mississippi River to the
federal government.3
The federal government then
used that land to form new states and encourage
settlement and development,while reserving some
land for public use.Efforts to encourage settlement
of the West continued to increase as lands were
used to pay debt and pay soldiers.In the early 1800s,
federal control of land increased rapidly after the
Louisiana Purchase,the OregonTreaty with England
and the U.S.-Mexican War led to Mexico turning
over land to the U.S.
Congress further encouraged westward expan-
sion and settlement with a series of laws aimed
at disposing of federal lands in return for people
moving west. Between 1781 and 1940, the federal
government transferred nearly 800 million acres
to private ownership. During the same period, the
federal government granted 328 million acres to
the states and 142 million in Alaska under state
and Native selection laws.4
In 1812, the General
Land Office was established as part of theTreasury
Department to oversee the disposal of federal lands.
A shift in how the federal government treated
public lands began in the 1930s. In 1934, Congress
passed the Taylor Grazing Act and created the U.S.
Grazing Service to manage grazing on public lands.
While the act indicated grazing was to last until
Congress had disposed of the lands, it was a clear
shift in the treatment of public lands. This was the
first time the federal government had authorized
direct management of lands that previously were
freely available for transient grazing.
In 1946, the General Land Office and the U.S.
Grazing Service were merged to form the Bureau
of Land Management. In 1964, Congress passed
Public Lands in the West
By Hans Poschman
Western states are unique in that the federal government owns and manages large portions
of the land in every state in the region. The federal government is responsible for managing
between 635 million and 640 million acres of land in the United States;1
roughly 592 million
of those acres are located in the West.2
The federal government controls 62 percent of the land
in Alaska and 47 percent of the land in the 11 mainland Western states. For comparison, the
federal government controls only 4 percent of the land in the remaining 38 states.
legislation creating the Public Land Law Review
Commission, which was tasked with reviewing
public land policy in the U.S. The commission
recommended revision of statutes regarding the
large-scale disposal of public lands and, “future
disposal should be only those lands that will
achieve maximum benefit for the general public
in non-Federal ownership, while retaining in
Federal ownership those whose values must be
preserved so that they may be used and enjoyed
by all Americans.”5
Congress debated the results
of the commission’s report for three terms before
passing the Federal Land Policy and Management
Act of 1976, which stated the federal government
should retain ownership of federal lands unless,“it
is determined that disposal of a particular parcel
will serve the national interest.”6
Additionally, the
act required the federal government to receive the
full market value for those lands if it disposed of
lands in the future.
Legal Basis for
Federal Land Ownership
The framers of the Constitution enshrined the
right of Congress to use, as it sees fit, the property
owned by the federal government through The
Property Clause, Article IV, § 3, Clause 2. It reads:
“The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and
make all needful Rules and Regulations respect-
ing the Territory or other Property belonging to
the United States.” In Kleppe v. New Mexico, the
Supreme Court ruled the property clause permits
Congress to exercise complete power over public
property entrusted to it.7
Additionally, the court
stated, “Congress … retains the power to enact leg-
islation respecting those (federal) lands pursuant
to the Property Clause. … And when Congress so
acts, the federal legislation necessarily overrides
conflicting state laws under the Supremacy Clause.”8

2. PUBLIC LANDS
460 The Book of the States 2014
Sagebrush Rebellion
The passage of the Federal Land Policy and Man-
agementAct in 1976 extinguished the hope of many
Westerners that the large tracts of federal land in
their states eventually would be turned over to the
states.Many refused to give up,however,and sparked
the Sagebrush Rebellion, a series of skirmishes,
including legal challenges and outright violence
intended to force the federal government to divest
itself of public lands.The incidents escalated to vio-
lence when a bomb was detonated at a U.S. Forest
Service office in April 1995. The threats rose to a
level where Bureau of Land Management em-
ployees were encouraged to travel in pairs. Efforts
to force the federal government to turn over its
public lands to the states—including lawsuits, state
and federal legislation—continue.
Among state efforts was a Nevada state law
enacted in 1979 that asserted state title, manage-
ment and disposal authority over public BLM lands
within Nevada’s boundaries.Arizona,Hawaii,Idaho,
New Mexico,North Dakota,Utah andWyoming all
passed similar legislation. In 1978, the State of
Nevada sued the federal government over the
constitutionality of the federal land retention policy
in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act.
Additionally, Nevada argued the federal govern-
ment held“public lands in trust temporarily,for the
purpose of disposal to the State and its citizens.”
The federal district court for the District of Nevada
dismissed the case,finding the constitution“entrusts
Congress with power over the public land without
limitations; it is not for the courts to say how that
trust shall be administered, but for Congress to
determine.”
In 1982, President Ronald Reagan signed an
executive order titled “Federal Real Property,”
which created a board to review federal property
available for disposal. The Reagan administration
changed how property should be disposed of,
moving from the free transfer of land to selling
land at fair market value. The administration’s
efforts stalled when Congress refused to authorize
WA
30.3
OR
53.1
CA
45.3
NV
84.5
UT
57.4
AZ
48.1 NM
41.8
CO
36.6
WY
42.3
MT
29.9
2.7
5.6
5.6
10.0
1.8 2.0
1.7
2.5
0.8
1.1
7.5
13.4
1.9
0.4
3.1
7.4
9.9
11.8
2.9
3.8
8.2
5.4
3.2
0.8
5.0
7.2
5.1
7.3 1.6
6.2
1.4
1.2
3.6
1.9
HI
19.4
AK
69.1
ID
50.2
0.4
2.0
2.8
Figure A: Federal Land as a Percentage of Total State Land Area
Source: U.S. General Services Administration, Federal Real Property Profile 2004.
Note: Map excludes trust properties. Some schematic sizes are slightly larger than actual size, for illustrative purposes.

3. PUBLIC LANDS
The Council of State Governments 461
Table A: Total State Acreage,Total Federal Acreage and Percentage
of State Acreage Administered by the Federal Government
Total percentage Dept. of
of state land Agriculture National Fish and Bureau of
State or other Total acreage Total federal acreage that Forest Park Wildlife Land Dept. of
jurisdiction in the state land acreage is federal Service Service Service Management Defense
Dept. of the Interior
Percentage of federal acreage in state, administered by the four
federal land management agencies and the Dept. of Defense, 2010
U.S. Total................... 2,271,343,360 628,801,639 27.7% 31% 13% 14% 39% 3%
Alabama.................... 32,678,400 871,232 2.7% 77% 2% 4% 0% 17%
Alaska........................ 365,481,600 225,848,164 61.8% 10% 23% 34% 32% 1%
Arizona...................... 72,688,000 30,741,287 42.3% 37% 9% 5% 40% 10%
Arkansas.................... 33,599,360 3,161,978 9.4% 82% 3% 12% 0% 3%
California .................. 100,206,720 47,797,533 47.7% 44% 16% 1% 32% 8%
Colorado.................... 66,485,760 24,086,075 36.2% 60% 3% 1% 35% 2%
Connecticut............... 3,135,360 8,557 0.3% 0% 67% 14% 0% 19%
Delaware ................... 1,265,920 28,574 2.3% 0% 0% 88% 0% 12%
Florida ....................... 34,721,280 4,536,811 13.1% 26% 54% 6% 0% 14%
Georgia...................... 37,295,360 1,956,720 5.2% 44% 2% 25% 0% 29%
Hawaii........................ 4,105,600 833,786 20.3% 0% 43% 36% 0% 21%
Idaho.......................... 52,933,120 32,635,835 61.7% 63% 2% 0% 36% 0%
Illinois........................ 35,795,200 406,734 1.1% 73% 0% 22% 0% 5%
Indiana....................... 23,158,400 340,696 1.5% 60% 3% 4% 0% 33%
Iowa ........................... 35,860,480 122,602 0.3% 0% 2% 58% 0% 40%
Kansas ....................... 52,510,720 301,157 0.6% 36% 0% 10% 0% 54%
Kentucky ................... 25,512,320 1,083,104 4.2% 75% 9% 1% 0% 15%
Louisiana................... 28,867,840 1,330,429 4.6% 45% 1% 42% 1% 10%
Maine......................... 19,847,680 209,735 1.1% 26% 32% 31% 0% 11%
Maryland ................... 6,319,360 195,986 3.1% 0% 21% 24% 0% 55%
Massachusetts ........... 5,034,880 81,692 1.6% 0% 40% 27% 0% 33%
Michigan.................... 36,492,160 3,637,965 10.0% 79% 17% 3% 0% 0%
Minnesota.................. 51,205,760 3,469,211 6.8% 82% 4% 14% 0% 0%
Mississippi ................. 30,222,720 1,523,574 5.0% 77% 7% 14% 0% 2%
Missouri..................... 44,248,320 1,675,400 3.8% 89% 3% 4% 0% 4%
Montana .................... 93,271,040 26,921,861 28.9% 63% 5% 2% 30% 0%
Nebraska ................... 49,031,680 549,346 1.1% 64% 1% 32% 1% 2%
Nevada....................... 70,264,320 56,961,778 81.1% 10% 1% 4% 84% 0%
New Hampshire ........ 5,768,960 777,807 13.5% 95% 2% 3% 0% 0%
New Jersey ................ 4,813,440 176,691 3.7% 0% 20% 40% 0% 40%
New Mexico .............. 77,766,400 27,001,583 34.7% 35% 1% 1% 50% 13%
New York................... 30,680,960 211,422 0.7% 8% 16% 13% 0% 63%
North Carolina.......... 31,402,880 2,426,699 7.7% 52% 15% 17% 0% 16%
North Dakota............ 44,452,480 1,735,755 3.9% 64% 4% 28% 3% 1%
Ohio........................... 26,222,080 298,500 1.1% 81% 7% 3% 0% 10%
Oklahoma.................. 44,087,680 703,336 1.6% 57% 1% 15% 0% 26%
Oregon....................... 61,598,720 32,665,430 53.0% 48% 1% 2% 49% 0%
Pennsylvania ............. 28,804,480 616,895 2.1% 83% 8% 2% 0% 7%
Rhode Island............. 677,120 5,248 0.8% 0% 0% 45% 0% 55%
South Carolina.......... 19,374,080 898,637 4.6% 70% 4% 14% 0% 12%
South Dakota............ 48,881,920 2,646,241 5.4% 76% 5% 8% 10% 0%
Tennessee .................. 26,727,680 1,273,974 4.8% 56% 28% 4% 0% 12%
Texas.......................... 168,217,600 2,977,950 1.8% 25% 40% 18% 0% 16%
Utah........................... 52,696,960 35,033,603 66.5% 23% 6% 0% 65% 5%
Vermont..................... 5,936,640 453,871 7.6% 88% 2% 7% 0% 3%
Virginia...................... 25,496,320 2,358,071 9.2% 71% 13% 5% 0% 11%
Washington................ 42,693,760 12,173,813 28.5% 76% 15% 1% 4% 4%
West Virginia............. 15,410,560 1,130,951 7.3% 92% 6% 2% 0% 0%
Wisconsin .................. 35,011,200 1,865,374 5.3% 82% 3% 11% 0% 4%
Wyoming ................... 62,343,040 30,043,513 48.2% 31% 8% 0% 61% 0%
Dist. Of Columbia .... 39,040 8,450 21.6% 0% 82% 0% 0% 18%
Source: Gorte,Vincent, Hanson and Rosenblum.“Federal Land Ownership: Overview and Data,” Congressional Research Service, February 8,
2012. https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42346.pdf.

4. PUBLIC LANDS
462 The Book of the States 2014
the disposal of lands without knowing what lands
the administration was considering selling.In 1985,
Reagan signed an executive order repealing the
previous directive and ordering the use of better
land management practices.
A series of bills introduced in Congress between
1977 and 1982 would have changed the land
retention policies in the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act.The bills would have authorized
the transfer of unreserved lands to states that
applied to have them if the state had a land man-
agement agency.These efforts failed, however, and
never reached the floor. The issue largely died off
in Congress until 1994, when House Republicans
introduced their Contract with America. Like
previous efforts, the bills never made it to the floor
for a vote.The bills that have been introduced since
then all failed to pass.
As recently as March 2014,the Sagebrush Rebel-
lion was rekindled when Cliven Bundy, a Nevada
rancher, and an armed group of supporters chose
to defy the federal government, Federal officials
had declared their intent to confiscate Bundy’s
cattle to offset the cost of his unpaid grazing fees.
The fees have been accumulating since 1993. The
Bureau of Land Management declined to enforce
its court order when conditions threatened to esca-
late to an armed confrontation, thus diffusing the
situation for the moment.
Current Efforts to Transfer Public Lands
Legislators in several Western states continue to
work to have the federal government transfer lands
to those states. During the past two years, policy-
makers in seven states have introduced legislation
concerning the transfer of federal public lands.Utah
has been among the most active states in moving
legislation forward. In 2012, Utah legislators passed
House Bill 148,“Transfer of Public Lands Act and
Related Study.”The legislation demands the federal
government“extinguish title”to 20 million acres of
land by Dec. 31, 2014, and transfer the ownership
to the state. The Utah legislature has followed up
the initial bill with a resolution in 2013 urging the
federal government to comply with the Transfer of
Public Lands Act.
In 2014, Utah passed House Bill 164,“The Inter-
state Compact on the Transfer of Public Lands,”
which would, “study, collect data, and develop
political and legal mechanisms for securing the
transfer to the respective member states of certain
specially identified federally controlled public lands
within the respective member state boundaries.”9
The compact would take effect when two states
have adopted the compact and Congress votes to
consent to the terms of the compact. Efforts in the
other states have not gone as far or been as strong
as the language included in the Utah legislation.
Notes
1
Gorte, Ross W. et al,“Federal Land Ownership: Over-
view and Data”Congressional Research Service,February
8, 2012. Available at: https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42
346.pdf.
2
Pomarico, Bonnie et al. “Public Land Statistics 2012”
Bureau of Land Management, June 2013. Available at:
http://www.blm.gov/public_land_statistics/pls12/pls2012-
web.pdf.
3
Alexander, Kristina et al. “Federal Land Ownership:
Constitutional Authority and the History of Acquisition,
Disposal,and Retention”Congressional Research Service,
December 3, 2007. Available at: http://assets.opencrs.com/
rpts/RL34267_20071203.pdf.
4
Pomarico, Bonnie et al. “Public Land Statistics 2012”
Bureau of Land Management, June 2013. Available at:
http://www.blm.gov/public_land_statistics/pls12/pls2012-
web.pdf.
5
OneThird of the Nation’s Land:A Report to the Presi-
dent and to the Congress by the Public Land Law Review
Commission (Washington, D.C.: U.S. GPO, June 1970).
6
The Federal Land Policy and ManagementAct of 1976,
Public Law 94-579, U.S. Statutes at Large 90 (1976): 2743.
7
Kleppe v. New Mexico, 426 U.S. 529, 542-543 (1976).
8
Kleppe v. New Mexico, 426 U.S. 529, 542-543 (1976).
9
House Bill 164,2013–2014,Regular Session,(Utah,2014)
http://le.utah.gov/~2014/bills/static/hb0164.html.
About the Author
Hans Poschman is a former policy analyst forThe Council
of State Governments West. Prior to joining CSG West, he
worked for the California Senate. His policy areas were
agriculture, rural affairs, water, environment and fiscal
policy.He holds a master’s in public policy from California
Polytechnic State University. He is currently employed at
the Institute for Advanced Technology and Public Policy
at Cal Poly in San Luis Obispo.