Restoring State Sovereignty Over Federal Lands
November 1, 2025
Abby Black
Background
In 1792, James Madison, one of America’s most influential Founding Fathers, wrote, “Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals … This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own. … That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where arbitrary restrictions, exemptions, and monopolies deny to part of its citizens that free use of their faculties, and free choice of their occupations, which not only constitute their property in the general sense of the word, but are the means of acquiring property strictly so called.”(1)
In recent decades, however, the federal government has strayed from Madison’s vision. It has broadly reinterpreted Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution—“The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property”—while seemingly ignoring the clause’s limitation: “nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims … of any particular State.”
This shift is most visible in the federal government’s control of land. Today, Washington, DC controls more than 60 percent of Alaska’s territory, and the 11 coterminous Western states collectively manage just 54 percent of their own lands. Meanwhile, Eastern states face far less federal oversight, with only a fraction of their territories reserved for federal use.(2)
The federal government’s vast control over Western lands has given it an outsized influence in regional economies and opened the door to destructive agricultural and economic policies that undermine both prosperity and self-governance.
Bureaucratic Control and Mismanagement
The U.S. Department of the Interior, empowered by 43 U.S. Code Chapter 8A §315, can unilaterally decide which lands may be preserved or put to productive use. The Department of Agriculture, under 43 U.S. Code §1752, exerts sweeping authority over the Western states through its permit and lease systems—erecting barricades on grazing lands to protect a mouse,(3) fining ranchers for watering their cattle,(4) penalizing them for making necessary agricultural improvements,(5) and even arresting ranchers for alleged land theft after they requested surveys to ensure they were not encroaching on federal property.(6)
In 2022, Idaho attempted to reclaim some of its water rights, but the federal government successfully sued to retain control of the state’s waterways, despite 43 U.S.C. 666(a) affirming that state sovereignty supersedes federal jurisdiction.(7)
As a result, economic development on federal lands is exceedingly difficult. Farmers who would otherwise cultivate fertile ground are stifled by red tape and bureaucracy, leading to the continued loss of productive farmland that could expand job opportunities and increase agricultural output nationwide. Similarly, excessive regulation discourages developers from building affordable housing, worsening the ongoing housing shortage.(8)
Wildfire Risks and Federal Inaction
Even federal agencies admit that mismanagement has consequences. In 2005, the Department of Agriculture acknowledged that insufficient land management directly correlates with rising wildfire risks.(9) Yet it still requires states to submit land management permits that can take up to four years for approval(10)—if environmental groups do not sue to block them first.(11) States face additional barriers, including National Ambient Air Quality Standard requirements(12) and environmental rules that prioritize animal habitats over fire safety.(13)
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency compounds the problem. Its regulation, 40 C.F.R. §50.14(b)(3)(ii)(C), prohibits states from exceeding prescribed burn limits, even when doing so is necessary to prevent catastrophic fires.
Carbon Credits and Misguided Incentives
Federal policy not only restricts proactive management—it can also reward inaction. Under current carbon credit frameworks, states and private industries may earn credits by emphasizing carbon sequestration rather than active management.(14) The Department of Agriculture’s pro-sequestration approach effectively assumes that nature prospers when dry, dead materials are left to decay rather than removed. Because of these incentives—and inaccurate claims that prescribed burns harm the environment(15)—federal programs often discourage the very land management practices needed to prevent catastrophic wildfires.
As a result, federal lands have become both the primary source of uncontrollable wildfires(16) and significantly more prone to fire than lands managed by states.(17)
Restoring State Sovereignty and Growth
Empowering states to reclaim control over their lands is the only viable path toward reducing wildfire risks, strengthening private property rights, curbing the national debt, and reviving the Founders’ vision of a self-reliant America.
By ending carbon credit incentives and repealing “green” regulations that prioritize plants and animals over human safety, states could implement more effective land management programs that limit both the severity and frequency of wildfires. Returning land to state control would also stimulate economic growth. The U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee has estimated that selling just 0.5 to 0.75 percent of land owned by the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service to the states would yield $5-10 billion,(18) while states could increase revenue through agricultural development, housing construction, and job creation.
Untapped Energy and Resource Wealth
America’s 700 million acres of largely undeveloped federal land contain vast reserves of natural wealth, including major deposits of oil, natural gas, and critical minerals. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, these resources amount to roughly 29 billion barrels of oil and 392 trillion cubic feet of natural gas(19)—worth tens of trillions of dollars at current market prices. Developing these resources—whether by the states or the federal government—would create jobs and generate significant revenue to reduce the national debt.
Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum has argued that revenue from resource development could be used to substantially reduce or altogether eliminate the nation’s $37 trillion debt.(20) President Donald Trump recognized this potential and issued several executive orders affirming that harvesting natural resources serves America’s national interest.(21)
Policy Recommendations
The United States should never depend on foreign nations for resources essential to its infrastructure and prosperity. Americans should not have to endure mounting debt, job shortages, unaffordable housing, struggling farms, and worsening wildfires—all preventable consequences of excessive federal control. Restoring state sovereignty over federal lands is essential to protecting the American way of life. Policymakers can take several concrete steps to achieve this goal.
First, Congress should authorize the transfer of select federally owned lands to the states at fair market value. This would restore constitutional balance, empower local decision-making, and generate significant revenue for the federal government while encouraging agricultural, residential, and commercial growth.
Second, permitting, leasing, and water rights oversight should be devolved to state governments. Streamlining regulatory authority at the state level would eliminate unnecessary federal interference, foster innovation, and promote efficient management of land and natural resources.
Third, states should be granted greater control over forest management and prescribed burns. Removing unnecessary EPA and USDA restrictions would reduce wildfire frequency and severity, protect property, and allow faster response to environmental hazards.
Fourth, federal incentives that discourage active land management should be eliminated. They should be replaced with policies that reward responsible stewardship, fire prevention, and productive use of natural resources.
Finally, federal and state governments should partner to expand the responsible development of oil, gas, and mineral reserves on public lands. Such efforts could create millions of jobs, generate substantial public revenue, and help pay down the national debt while reducing reliance on foreign energy sources.
1. James Madison, The Papers of James Madison, vol. 14, 6 April 1791 – 16 March 1793, ed. Robert A. Rutland and Thomas A. Mason (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1983), 266–68, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-14-02-0238
2. Carol Hardy Vincent, “State Management of Federal Lands: Frequently Asked Questions,” Congressional Research Service, December 16, 2016, https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/R44267.html
3. SACRAMENTO GRAZING ASS’N, INC., et al., v. The United States, No. 04-786 L, United States Court of Federal Claims (2017), https://ecf.cofc.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2004cv0786-204-0
4. Environmental Protection Agency, “EPA Fines Kansas Cattle Farms for Alleged Clean Water Act Violations,” January 17, 2025, https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-fines-kansas-cattle-farms-alleged-clean-water-act-violations
5. National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, “Cattle Producers Send WOTUS Letter to EPA,” February 7, 2022, https://www.ncba.org/news-media/news/details/41469/cattle-producers-send-wotus-letter-to-epa
6. Harriet M. Hageman, “Oversight letter to the DoJ requesting a briefing on the status of the Maude case,” Official Letters, January 22, 2025, https://hageman.house.gov/media/official-letters/oversight-letter-doj-requesting-briefing-status-maude-case
7. United States v. State of Idaho, No. 1:22-cv-00236 (D. Idaho June 2, 2022), ECF No. 1; see also: Nate Raymond, “US loses bid to block Idaho water rights forfeiture laws,” Reuters, August 29, 2024, https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-loses-bid-block-idaho-water-rights-forfeiture-laws-2024-08-29/
8. Garrett Hatch et al., “Potential Conveyance of Federal Land for Housing Development,” Congressional Research Service, August 7, 2025, https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF13080
9. David L. Peterson et al., “Forest Structure and Fire Hazard in Dry Forests of the Western United States,” U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, February 2005, https://www.fs.usda.gov/pnw/pubs/pnw_gtr628.pdf
10. Eric Edwards and Sara Sutherland, “Does Environmental Review Worsen the Wildfire Crisis? How Environmental Analysis Delays Fuel Treatment Projects,” Property and Environment Research Center, June 14, 2022, https://www.perc.org/2022/06/14/does-environmental-review-worsen-the-wildfire-crisis/
11. U.S. Government Accountability Office, “Forest Service: Information on Appeals, Objections, and Litigation Involving Fuel Reduction Activities, Fiscal Years 2006 through 2008,” GAO-10-337, March 2010, https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-10-337.pdf
12. U.S. Government Accountability Office, “Wildfire Smoke: Opportunities to Strengthen Federal Efforts to Manage Growing Risks,” GAO-23-104723, March 13, 2023, https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-23-104723
13. Cottonwood Environmental Law Center v. United States Forest Service, No. 13-35624 (9th Cir. June 17, 2015), https://www.fs.usda.gov/emc/applit/includes/9thCircuitCottonwoodDecision.pdf
14. U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Report to Congress: A General Assessment of the Role of Agriculture and Forestry in U.S. Carbon Markets,” October 2023, secs. 4.2.1.1 and 4.2.1.3, https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/USDA-General-Assessment-of-the-Role-of-Agriculture-and-Forestry-in-US-Carbon-Markets.pdf
15. Lisa Dilling et al., “Opportunities and Challenges for Carbon Management on U.S. Public Lands,” in Carbon Management, chap. 18, p. 470, 2014, https://www.fs.usda.gov/nrs/pubs/jrnl/2014/nrs_2014_dilling_001.pdf
16. U.S. Geological Survey, “Federal Lands Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sequestration in the United States—Estimates for 2005–22,” Scientific Investigations Report 2024-5103, 2024, https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2024/5103/sir20245103.pdf
17. Property and Environment Research Center, “How to Confront the Wildfire Crisis,” PERC Reports, volume 41, issue 1, summer 2022, https://www.perc.org/perc_reports/volume-41-no-1-summer-2022/
18. U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, “Mandatory Disposal of Bureau of Land Management Land and National Forest System Land for Housing,” June 11, 2025, https://www.energy.senate.gov/services/files/F45D5D1E-65F5-4631-8C8F-E8C67E0DBCBD
19. U.S. Geological Survey, “An Estimate of Undiscovered, Technically Recoverable Oil and Gas Resources Underlying Federal Lands of the Onshore United States, 2025,” National and Global Petroleum Assessment, June 18, 2025, https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2025/3032/fs20253032.pdf
20. Ari Natter, “US Interior Chief Pitches Resources on Federal Lands as Assets Worth Trillions,” Bloomberg, March 12, 2025, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-03-12/us-interior-chief-pitches-resources-as-assets-worth-trillions
21. Executive Office of the President, “Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Takes Immediate Action to Increase American Mineral Production,” March 20, 2025, https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/03/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-takes-immediate-action-to-increase-american-mineral-production/