The Government Controls Too Much Land in the West

Terence P. Jeffrey
Tue, 30 Dec 2025 18:14:49 -0800
Opinion

In which jurisdiction does the federal government own a higher percentage of the land? Is it in the District of Columbia, which sits on the East Coast and serves as the nation's capital, or is it in California, which sits on the West Coast and is one of the 50 states?

The answer is California.

According to a Congressional Research Service report published in 2020 (and cited by this column before), the federal government owned 24.7% of the land in the District of Columbia as of 2018. By contrast, it owned 45.4% of the land in California.
Updated: Wed Dec 31, 2025

In which jurisdiction does the federal government own a higher percentage of the land? Is it in the District of Columbia, which sits on the East Coast and serves as the nation's capital, or is it in California, which sits on the West Coast and is one of the 50 states?

The answer is California.

According to a Congressional Research Service report published in 2020 (and cited by this column before), the federal government owned 24.7% of the land in the District of Columbia as of 2018. By contrast, it owned 45.4% of the land in California.

That equaled a total of 45,493,133 acres in California.

Indeed, the acreage of California owned by the federal government exceeds all the acreage in each of 34 other states, according to the CRS data. It is, for example, greater than the 44,248,320 total acres that make up Missouri, or the 44,452,480 that make up North Dakota, or the 44,087,680 that make up Oklahoma.

In fact, the 45,493,133 acres that the federal government owns in California exceed the 37,057,280 acres that make up the combined territories of Connecticut (3,135,360), Delaware (1,265,920), Hawaii (4,105,600), Maryland (6,319,360), Massachusetts (5,034,880), New Hampshire (5,768,960), New Jersey (4,813,440), Rhode Island (677,120) and Vermont (5,936,640).

Nonetheless, there are six states in which the federal government owns an even higher percentage of the land than it owns in California. Are any of these states in the East, the South or the Midwest? No. They are all in the West.

The federal government, according to the CRS, owns 80.1% of the land in Nevada, 63.1% of the land in Utah, 61.9% of the land in Idaho, 60.9% of the land in Alaska, 52.3% of the land in Oregon, and 46.7% of the land in Wyoming.

This system of federal land ownership has not been imposed on the Northeast. The federal government owns only 0.3% of Connecticut, 0.7% of Rhode Island, 0.8% of New York, and 1.2% of Massachusetts.

It is true that some land in California should be preserved to protect its natural beauty and maintain pristine wilderness areas. There are, for example, nine national parks in California, sitting in virtually every region of the state except the Central Valley farming region. Death Valley and Joshua Tree national parks sit in the state's southeastern desert. Sequoia, Kings Canyon and Yosemite national parks sit in the Sierra Nevada Mountains. Lassen Volcanic National Park sits north of the Sierras in the Cascade Range. Channel Island National Park sits off the coast of Southern California. Pinnacles National Park sits in the coastal mountains east of Monterey, and Redwood National Park sits on the coast of Northern California.

Collectively, according to CRS, the National Park Service controls 7,612,898 acres of land in California, which is more than all the land in Maryland (6,319,360), Massachusetts (5,034,880) or New Jersey (4,813,440). Another 1,703,741 acres in California is controlled by the Department of Defense. But the combined 9,316,639 acres in California controlled by the NPS and the DOD still leaves another 36,176,494 acres controlled by other federal agencies.

Of these lands — that are not national parks or military facilities — 20,791,505 acres are controlled by the Forest Service, 15,088,090 are controlled by the Bureau of Land Management, and 296,899 are controlled by the Fish and Wildlife Service.

So, is the federal government doing enough to control land in California?

In the minds of some liberal Democrats, the answer is no.

On Dec. 17, Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) joined Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) in cosponsoring the Protecting Unique and Beautiful Landscapes by Investing in California Lands Act. The aim of this bill was to impose further protections on some of the federal owned lands in California that are not within the state's nine national parks.

"This comprehensive bill would permanently protect over 900,000 acres of public lands and promote restoration on another 871,000 acres throughout northwest California, the central coast, and Los Angeles County," Padilla said. "This bill includes protections for nearly 600,000 acres of new and proposed wilderness and nearly 700 miles of new wild and scenic rivers."

"As the Trump Administration tries to sell off our state's precious public lands and waters," said Padilla, "we must protect and restore these areas to mitigate wildfire risk, reach California's conservation goals, protect our natural resources, and ensure generations to come can enjoy access to the outdoors."

Schiff echoed this argument. "Yet, these public land are under threat from a Trump Administration which continues to advocate for selling millions of acres across the Golden State to the highest bidder," he said in a statement.

The average price of a home in the United States over the past year was $359,241, according to Zillow. In California, it was $754,304.

The federal government should not be setting aside more land in California. It should be opening up some of its land — not in national parks or monuments — to human development and housing.