Your cart is empty
As a general rule I don't trust anything that government says or does (I'm sure many of you can relate). Whether it's local, state, or federal they all seem to have their own agenda and it almost never has anything to do with the best interest of the people. The underlying goal of most political ambitions seems to be money. That's why when I started to dive in to this particular topic I figured I would run into a clear motive. Much to my chagrin I have not been able to come to a clear and concise conclusion on whether or not the great state of Utah has ulterior motives in attempting to gain control over 18.5 million acres of (currently) federally controlled land.
In August 2024 Utah Gov. Spencer Cox announced at a press conference a lawsuit from the state seeking to take control of to 18.5 million acres of federally managed land in Utah.
This lawsuit, filed Tuesday with the U.S. Supreme Court, goes far beyond previous legal challenges targeting specific monuments or policies. It questions the legitimacy of the Bureau of Land Management’s authority over 18.5 million acres—about 34% of Utah’s total land area. State officials are calling the case "historic," while environmental and public land advocates label it a "land grab." Regardless, the suit could significantly reshape how the Bureau of Land Management manages lands in Utah and potentially across the Western United States.
Currently around half of the federal public land in Utah is national monuments, national forest, or recreation area. The lawsuit does not include these areas and only includes “unappropriated” public land, or land that currently has no specific appointed use. The lawsuit specifically includes the other half, which the federal government has not given it any special designated purpose and is just "holding" it seemingly in perpetuity.
"That deprives Utah of its sovereignty, by holding land regardless of how it impacts residents or state business. Utah cannot manage, police or care for more than two thirds of its own territory because it’s controlled by people who don’t live in Utah, who aren’t elected by Utah citizens and not responsive to our local needs,” said Attorney General Sean Reyes.
Recently 13 states (and likely more to come) have gottten behind Utah’s effort, signing amicus briefs with the nation’s high court. This lawsuit seems to be gaining quite a bit of headway, but the question still remains... If Utah were to gain control of this land, what would they do with it?
On the states website that specifically addresses this lawsuit they claim:
If the lawsuit is successful, Utah intends to take steps to acquire these BLM lands and actively manage them for public use. 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.
( https://standforourland.utah.gov/ )
Sounds pretty solid, right?
But as I mentioned in my opening statement, rarely is there not an underlying motive. So what, if any, is that motive?
Some believe that if Utah won the lawsuit it would lead to fewer outdoor recreation opportunities and wildlife habitats, as well as open the way for privatization of public lands. My very first instinct when I heard of this lawsuit was that it was a land grab so that they could sell it off and privatize it and my instinct, sadly, is rarely wrong. The very possible result of a state take-over of federal land would be to sell a large amount of it to private developers, many members of the Utah Legislature, and people who sell “No trespassing” signs.
Also mentioned is the fact that the federal government currently pays the cost of mitigating wildfires, landslides, and other natural disasters, which Utah would have to take on if it controlled the public lands. The belief is that this is not the appropriate use of the states collected tax dollars.
I first heard of this lawsuit and following controversy from the increasingly popular "Meat Eater" podcast where they made a (way too) brief mention of it and the fact that they are in opposition to the lawsuit, that sent me down a very deep rabbit hole leading to this blog post. I always advocate looking in to controversial topics and coming to your own informed conclusions but I have been listening to these gentlemen for many years and I respect their informed opinion whenever they offer it. This is not a definitive reason to draw a "line in the sand" but it could be a pertinent deciding factor.
As an avid user of public land for various reasons I loathe the idea that even one single acre of our public land would get sold off to private interests and myself and other public land users would no longer have access to it. Utah always has been, and always will be, a public lands state. If their motive is nefarious there will be no going back once control has been relinquished to the state and the Utah powers that be would have unfettered power to sell off a large amount of our public land.
On the other hand, if their motive is to open up that land, make access roads, manage the wildlife, create increased hunting opportunity, camping, hiking, and other outdoor recreation opportunities then I am all in and would be all in on supporting the states attempt to control this land.
In the end, the future of Utah's public lands lies in a precarious balance, hinging on the true intentions behind this lawsuit. While the state promises to prioritize public access and multi-use management, there's an undeniable concern that privatization and restricted access could follow, overshadowing recreational and conservation goals. As we watch this legal battle unfold, it's critical to remain vigilant and engaged, ensuring that Utah's lands continue to serve the people. For public land users, this issue isn't just a question of ownership but one of heritage and shared space—a reminder of the importance of staying informed, asking hard questions, and advocating for responsible land stewardship.
What do you think?
Should the state of Utah be controlling this "unappropriated" land or should it remain in the hands of the federal government?
We have discussions going on on all major social media platforms, come follow us and join in, we'd love to hear your argument for either side.
