Law Commons^™

When Winning Means Losing: Why A State Takeover Of Public Lands May Leave States Without The Minerals They Covet, Robert B. Keiter, John C. Ruple

Wallace Stegner Center for Land, Resources, and the Environment publications

This White Paper, the third in a series assessing state efforts to take over federal public lands, addresses state claims to the minerals underlying those lands. Using Utah as an example, we argue here that even if states overcome extremely long odds to convince a court that the federal government is obligated to dispose of more public land, and that such a disposal obligation necessitates giving the public domain to the states, well established legal principles would prevent grants of most mineral lands to the states. Moreover, any mineral rights that states did obtain would be realized only after years …

Treating The Blue Rash: Win-Win Solutions And Improving The Land Exchange Process, Smith Monson

Utah Law Review

The history of public land laws from disposal to retention has created a fragmented ownership in the West. The school land grants led to a spotty pattern of state trust land ownership. This in turn creates conflict between the mandates of federal agencies—whose mandate is to protect environmentally sensitive areas—and state trust land authorities—whose mandate is to generate revenues for their beneficiaries. Both mandates promote important public interests.

Legislative land exchanges present potential win-win solutions for extricating state trust lands from within federal conservation areas, but they require a process that is too long and onerous. However, by improving the …