Understanding the Utah Federal Lands Ownership Debate

Senator Mike Lee, Chair of the House Committee on Natural Resources, is pushing budget legislation that is truly frightening. His latest proposal would transfer millions of acres of federal public lands out of citizens’ hands — piggybacking on the budget reconcillation’s lightning speed procedures to bypass traditional environmental reviews and public comment periods. 

A whole deep dive could be given to why this will not solve the affordable housing crisis. Another might examine the short-sighted notion that this sell-off would do anything to address the exploding deficit.

Instead, here, I would like to take a moment to consider Senator Lee's stance that Federal lands belong in State hands because this stance underlies much of recent lawsuits such as the Utah vs US Supreme Court case and the current language in the reconciliation bill. 

To get to the heart of what’s guiding this stance, we need to look at the Enabling Act which sets the conditions of Utah statehood. Senator Lee claims Utah has a right to federal lands based on this founding document, but there is little evidence to support this reading.  

First, Utah legally gave up any claim to federal lands when it became a state. The Utah Enabling Act required the state to "forever disclaim all right and title" to federal public lands and stated Utah "shall not be entitled to any further grants of land for any purpose." This is like signing a contract that says "I give up any right to ask for more" - you can't later claim you deserve more.

Second, federal land sales have a 150-year legal precedent, but not to states. The federal government has constitutional authority to sell public lands, but historically sells them directly to private buyers, not to state governments. Additionally, Congress passed the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976, which recognized public lands are valuable and should generally stay in public ownership. Land sales should be rare exceptions, not the rule.

Third, Utah's "taking back" argument makes very little historical sense. As University of Utah law professor John Ruple explains: "There was no state land until the federal government created a state... Utah didn't own that land prior to federal acquisition." You can't "take back" something you never owned in the first place.

Why This Matters Now

Understanding Senator Lee's belief that federal land belongs in State hands is crucial to understanding the current and future threats to public lands, particularly in Utah. To accept Lee’s interpretation of the Enabling Act and his claim for state rights to this land wipes away hard-won and enduring protections.

Treating land as just another asset or a ledger line in a long and historical fight over state sovereignty and economic development is truly dangerous. Bypassing the public process, allowing public land to be sold with minimal transparency, and depriving the public of input on the future of their public lands is an awful precedent that sets the stage for even more egregious land grabs. Selling off public lands is short-sighted and irreversible. 

Teddy Roosevelt said, "It is not what we have that will make us a great nation; it is the way in which we use it.” Within this quote is the belief that public lands belong to all the people. 

If this budget reconciliation bill passes, the precedent it sets, the belief system it enshrines will outlast us all.