NEED TO KNOW
FEDERAL LANDS
America is truly blessed with a beautiful and bountiful landscape. “From the
mountains to the prairies to the ocean white with foam,” the United States’
rich natural resources combined with her citizens’ ingenuity has sprung a
fountainhead of prosperity for centuries (3). This economic growth has
unfolded in spite of the federal government, not because of it, with
Washington hoarding hundreds of millions of acres in land.
Today, federal agencies like the Bureau of Land Management and Forest
Service own 635-640 million of the United States’ 2.27 billion acres. That’s
an incredible 28% of the country’s landmass, with western states hit the
hardest. Obviously, federal agencies need sufficient land to exercise their
constitutional functions, like military bases for national security and
interstate highways for commerce. However, the vast majority of this land is
not used for such purposes, but rather sits idle with little access given to
American citizens. Washington’s hoarding of inactive federal lands is legally
questionable and economically destructive, necessitating these lands to be
speedily transferred to their rightful owners, We the People.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

QUICK FACTS
28% of America’s landmass is
owned by the federal
government (1).
93% of the federal
government’s land is
concentrated in 13 states west
of Texas.

NOTABLE & QUOTABLE
“If these lands are to be
withheld . . . Those States will,
for many generations, without
some change, be retarded in
endeavors to increase their
comfort and wealth, by means
of works of internal
improvements, because they
have not the power, incident
to all sovereign States, of
taxing the soil, to pay for the
benefits conferred upon its
owner by roads and canals.”

The legal case for transferring inactive federal lands to the states is rooted in
American history. Upon accepting a new state into the Union, Congress
historically passed “Enabling Acts” detailing the logistics of transferring
- 20th U.S. Congress, Public
responsibilities from the federal government to the newly christened state.
Lands Committee Report,
Such Enabling Acts explicitly spelled out the federal government’s intent to
February 5, 1828 (2)
“extinguish title” of their land to the new state.4 Sadly, the federal
government has evaded its promises ever since it made them. As early as
1828, new states like Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, Alabama
and Florida successfully petitioned Washington to turn over its inactive land within their borders.

Unfortunately, not much has improved since the 1828 decision. The federal government hoarded the land of newly
annexed Western states ever since, despite promising otherwise in future Enabling Acts. Indeed, all three branches
of the government have acknowledged their responsibility to turn over federal lands to states in a timely manner.
Besides congressional state charters, President Andrew Jackson reaffirmed the federal government’s commitment
in 1833, and the Supreme Court clarified the language of Enabling Acts in the 1915 case Christianson v. King County.
Yet, Washington has not kept its promise. As a result, 93% of the federal government’s land today is concentrated
in the 13 states west of Texas, seriously hindering their economic development.

ECONOMIC EFFECTS
The federal government’s excessive ownership of inactive land has had two major effects on America’s economic
development, especially in Western states. Since state and local governments cannot collect property taxes on
federal lands, many Western states have resorted to levying high income taxes to fund their government functions,
which are more economically destructive. As a result, Western states like California have astronomical taxes to
fund their activities, including an unbelievable 13.3% top individual income tax rate, hindering growth in the Golden
State as well as its regional peers (5).

 However, what has hurt development even more than
high taxes is the opportunity cost of inactive federal
lands. The hundreds of millions of acres that sit idle
across the country would be better owned by citizens
to build homes and businesses, increasing economic
activity, or with ranches and wildlife reserves that also
produce value. Any sort of activity would be an
improvement to the status quo of inactivity. Indeed,
the federal government notoriously underuses its
lands. To give one example from the Obama
administration, oil production on federal lands
decreased 14% on federal lands from 2010 to 2011 even
as production on non-federal lands grew (6). The
simple fact is that property owners have greater
incentive to care for and create value from their land
than federal bureaucrats. Ceding control of inactive
federal lands could lead to an economic boom for the
American economy.

CONCLUSION
Most Americans acknowledge that the federal government has a role to play in managing our nation’s
vast landmass. National parks, military bases, and interstate highways are all federal lands that are
understandably under Washington’s control. However, every acre of land that does not fulfill these basic
functions of government is an acre that could have been better used by a private citizen or company.
Unfortunately, this opportunity cost applies to the vast majority of federal lands that sit idle as an
untapped frontier for prosperity.

Endnotes:
1.
Ross W. Gorte, Carol Hardy Vincent, Laura A. Hanson, Marc. R. Rosenblum, “Federal Land Ownership: Overview and
Data,” Congressional Research Service (February 8, 2012), http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42346.pdf.
2.
“We Can’t Wait Talking Points,” American Lands Council,
http://www.americanlandscouncil.org/we-can-t-wait-talking-points.html.
3.
“God Bless America,” ScoutSongs.com Virtual Songbook, http://www.scoutsongs.com/lyrics/godblessamerica.html.
4.
“Quick Fact #3: Did We Really Give Up Out Lands At Statehood?,” American Lands Council,
http://www.americanlandscouncil.org/quick-fact--3-did-we-really-give-up-our-lands.html.
5.
“California,” Tax Foundation, http://taxfoundation.org/state-tax-climate/california.
6.
Phil Taylor, “Drilling leaves fed land because state, private acres are cheaper, says BLM chief,” Red Lodge
Clearinghouse (March 15, 2012),
http://rlch.org/news/drilling-leaves-fed-lands-because-state-private-acres-are-cheaper-says-blm-chief.

Americans for Prosperity Foundation’s “Need to Know” informational series explores current events
and recent scholarship on public policy isues from a free-market economics perspective. A full list of
“Need to Know” briefings is available at www.AmericansForProsperityFoundation.org/NeetToKnow.
©2012 Americans for Prosperity Foundation. All Rights Reserved.

AMERICANSFORPROSPERITYFOUNDATION.ORG