Below is a list of common questions. If you have additional questions, please note them in the comments below or email [email protected]. ALC members can access additional documents and information in our Library.

Utah v U.S. lawsuit of 2024:

Q: What is the subject of Utah's lawsuit?

A: The sole purpose of the lawsuit is to answer the constitutional question of whether or not the federal government can retain unappropriated lands in a state indefinitely, over the state's objection. The “unappropriated” land in question is land the United States is simply holding without any designated purpose. This lawsuit DOES NOT INCLUDE "appropriated" federal lands such as national parks, national monuments, wilderness areas, national forests, Tribal lands, or military properties. See map of land included and excluded from Utah v U.S. here.

Q: Why did Utah file this lawsuit?

A: The federal government controls nearly 70% of the land in Utah. A key challenge Utah currently faces is that the federal government continues to restrict public use of BLM lands. In many instances, these restrictions do not provide Utahns with the most efficient and effective land management, economic stability, and recreational opportunities. The lawsuit is a critical first step in ensuring that Utah has the ability to actively manage and preserve public land for public use. 

Q: What will happen if Utah wins this case?

A: Utah intends to take steps to acquire these BLM lands and actively manage them for multiple uses. Utah’s preference is that public land remain in public hands, locally controlled and open for sustainable use and recreation to benefit both current and future generations of Utahns and visitors. Should Utah acquire these lands, the state will manage them for multiple uses: to balance recreation, wildlife habitat, and conservation with other responsible uses such as energy production, livestock grazing, and sustainable resource development.

The Utah legislature created the Utah Department of Land Management in 2017 (Utah state Code 63L-9-102), which would come into existence if Utah were to acquire 250,000 or more acres of federal lands. The Utah Department of Land Management would manage these newly acquired lands under the Utah Public Lands Management Act (Utah state Code, Title 62L, Chapter 8), which outlines management processes and includes a prohibition against the privatization of these public lands, except in rare situations (Utah state Code 63L-8-104).

Utah would recognize valid existing rights on public lands such as outdoor recreation, dispersed camping, rock climbing, livestock grazing, mining, energy development, and energy transmission.

Q: How much land does the Utah v. U.S. lawsuit include, what kind of land is it, and where is it located?

A: Utah's lawsuit centers on the 18.5 million acres of unappropriated land within the state of Utah that is currently controlled by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) under the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA). Of all the federal land in Utah, half of it is “unappropriated” land, meaning that the United States simply holds the land without any designated purpose. This lawsuit DOES NOT INCLUDE the tens of millions of "appropriated” acres designated as national parks, national monuments, wilderness areas, national forests, Tribal lands, or military properties. See map of land included and excluded from Utah v U.S. here.

Q: Will BLM land in other states be affected by this lawsuit?

A: The BLM currently holds 245 million acres of unappropriated public land spread across the western United States, Alaska, the Dakotas, and a few eastern states. We believe if the Court agrees with Utah that it is unconstitutional for the federal government to retain unappropriated lands within Utah, that the ruling would apply to the unappropriated lands in all states.   

Q: How much land does the federal government own?

A1: In total, the federal government currently owns about 640 million acres which equates to about 1/3 of the entire United States, and this includes nearly 1/2 of all land in the western United States. See map of all federal land in the United States here. There are several categories of federal land, but about 245 million acres, or 38% of it, is "unappropriated" land, meaning the federal government simply holds it without any designated purpose. For a breakdown of the type and quantity of federal land located in each state, see federal land inventory report here.

Q: If the Court rules that Utah is right and the federal government can't keep the land, will Congress be forced to sell it to the highest bidder?

Q: What is going to be done about existing rights?

A: All valid existing rights including grazing, mining, timber, water, access, and others will continue to be recognized.

Q: What about grazing rights?

A: Once fully in control of range-lands, western states will be able to guarantee grazing rights, and will be able to engage in proactive sustainable efforts to increase the yield of forage, increase the yield of clean water, and reduce the effects of invasive species on the range through locally-driven, on-the-ground response.

Q: Will I be able to hunt, fish, 4-wheel, hike, bike, etc.?

A: Yes. As accountable, responsible stewards, states in the West are inclined to manage the public lands to enhance and improve access and recreational opportunities.

Q: What will happen with tribal lands?

A: Tribal lands are not included in Utah's lawsuit or ALC's efforts.  

Q: What will happen to our forests?

A: Local management and decision-making will result in healthier, more accessible, more productive, and more fire-resilient forests.

Q: What about protections for wildlife and habitat?

A: The management of wildlife and habitat will change - for the better. Through improvements to the range, wetlands and other wildlife habitat made possible by more cost-effective operations, local knowledge, and reliance on sound stewardship principles, state and local agencies can provide more effective and responsive protection and management of wildlife to the enjoyment of all Americans. Invasive species can be better controlled, wetlands vital to migratory birds can be better protected, and wildfire risk can be dramatically reduced.

Q: Will the lands be sold to the highest bidder?

A: Not if Utah prevails in its lawsuit. Federal public lands will become State public lands and the lands will continue to be managed for multiple use, i.e., sustainable yield and protection of resources, hunting and fishing, and recreational access.  Utah enacted a statute prohibiting the privatization of public lands except in rare circumstances. (Utah state Code, Title 62L, Chapter 8). The legislation passed in Utah paved the way for the creation of a Public Lands Commission to responsibly manage the lands and preserve the expectation of multiple-use of the lands that have developed over the last 116 years since statehood.  

Q: Can the states afford to manage the lands if they win them back?

A: Yes. When it comes to the cost and benefits of public land management, western States out-perform the feds by an average of 10 to 1 or better. Western States use best management practices coupled with sound fiscal policies and local knowledge to produce healthier, more vibrant landscapes at a fraction of the cost the federal government spends. States are more efficient at using land management funding where it is actually needed, where it makes a real difference, and in a way that generates a reasonable return on investment. Conversely, federal land management tends to be slow, inefficient, ineffective, and extremely expensive due to a behemoth bureaucracy, contradicting edicts, and non-stop litigation. 

Economic comparison data clearly demonstrates that state governments manage their lands at less cost per acre or visitor than does the federal government. Assuming a “best use” determination that balances aesthetic and economic uses for their lands, states are poised to gain overall revenue while still acting as responsible stewards for future generations and balancing aesthetic and recreational values with revenue-generating natural resource production. Comparable operations on state and federal lands have shown time and time again that states more consistently provide for healthy landscapes and beneficial productivity and that state-based management is far more cost effective than federal land management.

Q: Will this harm tourism and outdoor recreation?

A: No, if anything it will enhance them because there will be better access and better care on our public lands. 

Shifting to state-based public land management will allow states to maintain vibrant healthy landscapes and to employ the best management practices to enhance or restore areas which have suffered greatly under the process-heavy federal bureaucracy.  

Outdoor tourism thrives because healthy landscapes, abundant terrestrial, bird and aquatic wildlife and the opportunity to engage the outdoors, through one's own labors provide the experience people seek. Proper management of the land, water, forestry and wildlife resources by the state, coupled with guaranteed access to the recreational areas, and encouragement to private enterprise to provide recreational opportunities for those who desire it, will foster a healthy tourism industry.

Other General Questions:

Q: Do eastern states have a stake in this battle?

A: Yes. Most western states are net “takers” of federal spending, in large part because they lack access to the resources that would allow them to be self-sufficient. Additionally, the federal government loses billions of dollars annually on its dysfunctional "management" of federal lands in the west. If our plan is implemented, federal spending could be reduced, the national economy would be bolstered, and eastern States would no longer have to subsidize western States or breath massive quantities of wildfire smoke drifting off of poorly managed federal lands.

Q: Don’t these lands belong to all of us?

A: No, public lands rightfully belong to the citizens of the state in which those lands reside, just as lands in eastern states belong to the citizens of those states. Ownership by any specific state is unlikely to reduce enjoyment of the lands by anyone. Just as Americans all feel welcome to enjoy the beauty of the color in the Northeast in the fall, and the beaches of Florida in the winter, Americans will feel as welcome as ever, if not more so, to enjoy the experience of Utah's snow, color country, and plentiful wildlife through responsible care and management of the land and its resources by the best managers - those closest to the lands.

Q: Doesn’t the state already get money from public land?

A: States currently receive a share of federal mineral receipts, and local governments receive a small amount from the federal Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) and Secure Rural Schools (SRS) program. These are federal revenue sharing programs designed to partially compensate for the lack of access, opportunity, and tax base resulting from federal control of lands within our states. 

Q: Why the difference in federal land ownership between east and west?

A: Several factors account for the difference. First, most federal lands in the eastern and plains states were disposed of in the early 19^th century through land sales and land grants to homesteaders, railroads, and states (i.e. trust lands), and the like. Back then, the United States government and the States understood the terms of Statehood required the federal government to relinquish its control over lands within newly formed states. 

The Western states were brought into the Union mostly during the late 19^th and early 20^th centuries, by which time a movement was underway to reserve federal lands for a variety of reasons – many of them seemingly valid. In addition, neither the need nor the ability existed to inhabit or develop the vast and rugged land encompassed within the new western States. With the nation's attention turned to a series international wars, the promise of Statehood equality faded, and by the 1970's Congress formalized a national policy to reject those promises outright and instead retain its hold on the federal lands within the states. To this day, about half of all land in the western States still remains under federal control.

Q: How did they become federal lands?

A: There's a much longer history, but we will begin here: Before western states were created, lands west of the original 13 states were organized into U.S. territories. From within the territories, new states were systematically admitted into the union through passage of Enabling Acts which were formal agreements between the new states and the federal government. The Enabling Acts included a clause that the state would “forever disclaim all right and title” to public lands in the state. However, the “forever disclaim” sentence goes on to say “… until the title thereto shall have been extinguished by the United States.” This language provided clean title to the federal government so the federal government could dispose of the land without state interference. The federal government never had the constitutional authority to unilaterally retain these public lands within the states forever, nor was it the intention of the states or federal government that this would be the case. To the contrary, the historic record underlying the constitution and admission of new states indicates the federal government has a duty to divest itself of title to these lands within the states. 

Q: Has anything like this lawsuit ever been tried before?

A: The questions Utah has posed in this case have never been addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Q: What’s the difference between the Sagebrush Rebellion and current efforts?

A: Action against federal land control in the West has flared up about every other generation since the mid-19^th century, usually as a result of new regulations, land grabs, restrictions, or increased fees. The Sagebrush Rebellion took place in the 1970s and early 1980s, where Western states – starting with Nevada – protested against enormous restrictions and takings under President Jimmy Carter, primarily using the recent National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Federal Lands Policy Management Act (FLPMA). The Sagebrush Rebellion ended through accommodation, and to some degree co-option, under President Reagan when his Secretary of Interior James Watt implemented the "Good Neighbor Policy", wherein Western governors and land users were supposedly given a greater voice to partner in federal land management decisions, even as the overall federal estate expanded even further. Since then, multiple presidential administrations and their executive agencies have reacted to state and local concerns with a mixed bag of neglect, lip service, disrespect, deception, confrontation, legal action, tighter restrictions, and adversarial relationships instead of a meaningful partnership.

Western interests simply have reached the point where they have nothing to lose by bringing legal action. But this time, we have the benefit of immense legal analysis, ALC's nationwide network of support, and at least one courageous State committed to seeing that the law is followed.

ALC is America’s Advocate for Better Access, Health, and Productivity on Public Lands.

Please support our mission by joining us as an official member.