The secretary of the interior’s land exchange mechanism is an important and often controversial tool in managing public lands in the United States. Land exchanges have been utilized throughout the history of the United States to facilitate land management objectives, and they involve swapping public land for private land in order to enhance resource management or address land use conflicts. The policy is a subject of debate, as it can lead to significant shifts in land ownership and use, potentially benefiting certain interests while also raising concerns about long-term environmental and public access considerations.
The John D. Dingell, Jr. Conservation, Management, and Recreation Act (Dingell Act) is the most recent evolution of federal land exchange policies. The Act is a sweeping piece of conservation legislation that permanently reauthorizes the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) and addresses land and water management issues, including land exchanges. Among its provisions, the Dingell Act includes specific frameworks for exchanges to streamline land management, protect valuable natural resources, and enhance recreational access, particularly in national parks and public lands.
The Emery County Public Land Management Act, a pivotal example of land exchange policy in practice, provides a recent illustration of how these policies are implemented and their effects on both conservation and development goals. Section 1255 of the Dingell Act directs an exchange of the land between the secretary of the interior and the state of Utah’s Trust Lands Administration. In this exchange, the federal government will acquire approximately 116,042 acres of non-federal lands in exchange for conveying approximately 89,390 acres of federal lands to the state of Utah. It is estimated that the parcels being conveyed to Utah will contain approximately 32 million recoverable tons of coal, approximately 2.5 million barrels of oil, and approximately 25,800 million cubic feet of natural gas. Other parcels may be available for housing development, recreation, livestock grazing, and critical minerals development, with the revenue obtained from for developments directly funding Utah public schools.
The land exchange policy offers several advantages. One of its primary benefits is the ability to resolve land management conflicts. Public lands are often encumbered by overlapping interests, including mining, logging, energy development, conservation, and recreational activities. Through land exchanges, the federal government can eliminate or reduce these conflicts by adjusting the boundaries of protected areas or reallocating land to more appropriate uses. In the case of the Emery County Public Land Management Act, the federal government was able to obtain parcels of land in an area of valuable wilderness previously unavailable to them, thereby securing public access and aiding in conservation in exchange for trading land to the state of Utah which it could develop for its own benefit.
The Dingell Act supports these types of exchanges by emphasizing resource protection, which allows for more targeted conservation and the consolidation of fractured land ownership. In many parts of the American West in particular, private individuals own land within the boundaries of federal land management units. These lands can lie within national parks, national monuments, national wildlife refuges, designated for special management. This leads to situations where the federal land management agencies and the general public will lack access to lands within a designated wilderness or park, and private landowners will lack the ease of access to maintain or develop their own land. The mutually beneficial exchange of federal lands for private is often a desirable solution for all parties involved.
The Emery County Public Land Management Act appears to be a reason to celebrate. The deal will help the San Rafael Swell Recreation Area expand recreational activities in the area, creates the Jurassic National Monument to protect one of the world’s most significant dinosaur fossil sites, and expands Goblin Valley State Park to improve park facilities. Simultaneously, the land traded to the state has major energy-producing potential and contains deposits of critical minerals, the development of which is expected to provide economic opportunities in rural Utah.
The comments received during the public comment period provides a relatively cordial discourse with the exchange. The comment summary available in the Final Environmental Assessment shows that the those concerned about the project were ranchers worried about the possible loss of future grazing permits, individual commenters concerned about land evaluations, and the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA) reminding the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) of their statutory duties to analyze and disclose all required information under the National Environmental Policy Act. While their concerns appear to have been addressed according to the BLM response page, any future litigation over this exchange would most likely come from SUWA as the largest conservation proponent to comment. That being said, a statement shortly following the finalization of the exchange suggests that SUWA is more concerned with the politicians’ misleading claims around the exchange “returning” federal land to Utah and getting another land exchange completed more than litigating this one.
Under the Trump administration, land exchanges are likely to become more common as the administration has prioritized resource extraction and economic development. Land exchanges under this administration will likely focus more on facilitating the development of energy resources, particularly fossil fuels, by enabling access to previously restricted or protected lands. There may also be an increase in the privatization of public lands, which aligns with the administration’s broader deregulatory stance.
However, future land exchanges will likely be subject to greater scrutiny from environmental groups, local communities, and lawmakers who are concerned about the long-term effects of these exchanges. Given the contentious nature of many of the environmental actions conducted during the Trump administration, it is likely that future exchanges will be more heavily debated, and the policy may become more divisive as a result.
The secretary of the interior’s land exchange policy offers a flexible and useful tool for managing public lands. The case of the Dingell Act and Emery County Public Land Management Act demonstrates how this tool can help resolve conflicts, promote resource management, and foster economic development, all while showcasing a positive demonstration of the policy in action. Under the Trump administration, it is likely that the policy will be used to further promote development, particularly in the areas of energy production, while facing significant challenges and opposition from environmental and public interest groups.
