Public Land Law

Public land law is often thought to be divided into historical eras like the Disposition Era, the Reservation Era, and the Modern Era. We think an overarching theme throughout all eras is antimonopoly. Since the Founding, and continuing for over two-and-a-quarter centuries into the 21st century, antimonopoly policy has permeated public land law. In this article we show the persistence of antimonopoly sentiment throughout the public land history, from the Confederation Congress to Jacksonian America to the Progressive Conservation Era and into the modern era. Antimonopoly policy led to widespread ownership of American land, perhaps America’s chief distinction from England and Europe. The policy fostered acreage limits in federal grants, a preference for bona fide settlers, and eventually an evolution from land sales to free land under the Homestead Act. Antimonopoly principles were also present in public timber, mining, and rangeland policies from the earliest days. In the Progressive Conservation Era antimonopoly fueled a public land withdrawal and reservation movement, landmark leasing and licensing programs that maintained public control over fuel minerals and waterways, and the first explicit federal policy concern over future generations. The modern era has seen the codification of multiple use management, the enactment of comprehensive land planning statutes, and the rise of multi-species concerns, among other antimonopoly policies. Although antimonopoly policies seem to be under some threat from recent Congresses, a turn toward monopoly would amount to a renunciation of centuries of public land policy. This history strongly counsels against such these proposals as, however imperfectly realized on-the-ground, antimonopoly has been always been cardinal feature of public land law and policy and is deeply embedded in the nation’s identity as a reflection of republican values of individualism and equal opportunity.

The federal public lands, a defining characteristic of the American West, are embroiled in change and controversy. This is nothing new as these lands have long ignited passions linked to debates over resource development versus protection and federal-state relations. During the past fifty years, however, changes engulfing the region have helped enflame these historic debates, driven by unparalleled population growth, major economic and social shifts, water conflicts, energy development demands, climate change impacts, emergent recreational and environmental values, new scientific knowledge, extensive litigation, reduced agency budgets, new community-based collaborative initiatives, and the like. These remarkable changes are testing the legal and institutional framework governing the public lands, which has changed little during the past fifty years despite recurrent criticism directed toward its shortcomings. In fact, the last comprehensive review of federal public land and resource law occurred during the 1960s, when the Public Land Law Review Commission convened and issued a groundbreaking report that helped prompt much-needed legal reforms, such as the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, National Forest Management Act, Payment in Lieu of Taxes Act, and Public Rangelands Improvement Act. Given the level of controversy prevailing on the public lands today, this Article addresses the question whether the time has come for another comprehensive review of the relevant laws governing these publicly owned lands and their resources. The Article identifies the changes that are inexorably reshaping public land policies, reviews past efforts through federal commissions to examine and reform the laws governing these lands, and assesses the prospects for another comprehensive review. Noting the extreme level of controversy and distrust that persists today, it concludes by proposing a more limited review effort, one focused on accelerating recreational uses and conflicts that may present an opportunity to achieve consensus for the sake of the landscape that everyone is sharing and values.

Previous articleNext article No AccessBooksHISTORY OF PUBLIC LAND LAW DEVELOPMENT. By Paul W. Gates, with a chapter by Robert W. Swenson. Written for the Public Land Law Review Commission. (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1968. 828 pp. Notes, bibliography, appendixes, index. $8.25.) THE LAND OFFICE BUSINESS: THE SETTLEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION OF AMERICAN PUBLIC LANDS, 1789-1837. By Malcolm Rohrbough. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1968. 321 pp. Maps, notes, bibliography, index. $8.75.)Marion ClawsonMarion Clawson Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Volume 13, Number 1-2April-July 1969 Published for the American Society for Environmental History and the Forest History Society Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.2307/4004082 Journal History This article was published in the Forest History Newsletter (1957-1974), which was continued by the Journal of Forest History (1974-1989). © 1969 Forest History Society, Inc. All rights reserved.PDF download Crossref reports no articles citing this article.

Utah's Women Homesteaders

The footsteps of administrative law and public land law - Focusing on land planning law -

This article explores the origins and precise meaning of the term organic act, which is widely used in public land law. The evolution in the meaning of the term reflects larger shifts in the role of legislation in public resource management. The article illustrates this with an analysis of the 1997 Refuge Improvement Act, a substantial revision of the charter for the Refuge System and the first major statute governing public land management enacted since the 1970s. The Refuge System's use regime is an important model for sustainable resource management. The article describes this regime in the context of the unique purpose, hierarchy of dominant uses, and substantive management mandates under which the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service administers the national wildlife refuges. In addition, the article provides a critique of the planning, compatibility, and biological integrity, diversity and environmental health policies that the Service has promulgated to guide management of the refuges.

T HE PUBLIC LAND LAW REVIEW Commission (hereinafter referred to as PLLRC) was established by a special act of Congress on September 19, 1964.1 It was directed to make a comprehensive review of the public land laws, rules and regulations, to study the policies and practices of the federal agencies charged with administrative jurisdiction over (public) lands, and to recommend necessary revisions. The Commission's landmark report included a discussion of the problem of revenue sharing and payments in lieu of taxes on federal property, together with three related recommendations.2 These recommendations are summarized as fol-

The Land Law is one of the most concerned laws in Vietnam. Although the 2013 Land Law – the current Land Law has achieved many positive advances, some of its contents have not kept up with the rapid development in the economy and society of Vietnam today. This study examines the advances made in Vietnam's land law, with a focus on the 2013 Land Law and its implementation. In this study, we analyze the legal framework for land use in Vietnam, including the historical context of land reform and the development of the current land law. We also review the implementation of the 2013 Land Law, including its impact on land ownership, land use rights, and land management practices. Lastly, we provide a detailed analysis of the advances made in the 2013 Vietnam's land law, as well as the challenges and opportunities for further progress in land governance in Vietnam.

A 2005 amendment to Israel's Public Land Law and the 1994 National Health Insurance Law (NHIL) are two policies that highlight the complex relationship between the Israeli state and the Negev/Naqab Bedouins. While the Land Law sanctioned house demolitions and the erasure of Bedouin villages, the NHIL granted Bedouins access to healthcare and increased their visibility within the medical system. In this article, I draw on these contradictory policies of inclusion and exclusion to argue that the treatment of Negev/Naqab Bedouins as equal citizens within Israel is contingent on state officials' seeing only particular aspects of this community. Crucially, this means that state officials actively make invisible the unequal and exclusionary politics that marginalize Bedouin citizens. While the case of the Bedouins in Israel is a specific one, I suggest that attending to how state officials make particular individuals, communities, and histories invisible clarifies how states, both in Israel and beyond, maintain the state's ideology of equality despite a hierarchy of privilege. It is through the production of invisibility that neglect and exclusion come to be justified and obscured, and that themes of inclusion and democracy can be highlighted. Therefore, an analysis of the making of invisibility allows for an examination of the active production of the state and of citizenship, and provides a more complex understanding of the role of visibility in state practices.

Problem setting. The issue of legal entities’ ownership of land plots is considered to be an important one in the field of legal regulation and scientific research, given that land ownership plays a key role in stimulating investment, business development and efficient use of natural resources. Land relations involving legal entities are regulated primarily by the provisions of land law, with some civil law provisions being taken into account. An important classification of legal entities in the context of exercising land rights is their division into private and public. At the same time, scholars base this division on the grounds for establishing a legal entity, the purpose of its activities and the form of ownership. Thus, it is noted that there are differences in the exercise of their rights to land plots by legal entities under private law compared to legal entities under public law. Such differences are manifested, in particular, in the grounds for acquisition, realization and termination of ownership. Analysis of recent researches and publications. The issue of peculiarities of private property rights to land plots of legal entities under private law has not been the subject of a comprehensive study, while some issues have been addressed by such scholars as P. Kulynych, M. Shulga, T. Kovalenko, V. Nosik, A. Miroshnychenko and others. Purpose of the research is to analyze and identify the specifics of private property rights and peculiarities of private law legal entities as subjects of land ownership, and this understanding affects the efficiency of legal regulation of land relations, economic development and rational use of land resources. Article’s main body. Thus, legal entities, as subjects of land rights, have significant opportunities to acquire land plots into private ownership. The procedure for such acquisition may differ depending on the type of legal entity private or public law, as well as its national status domestic or foreign. Legal entities of private law established by Ukrainian citizens or legal entities have the right to acquire land plots for the purpose of conducting business. At the same time, the absence of clear restrictions on the use of land for other activities suggests that such legal entities may also use land plots for other purposes. The classification of land plots by their designated purpose affects the specifics of legal regulation of the acquisition of such land. Thus, land plots of almost all categories may be privately owned by legal entities. At the same time, the law establishes restrictions on the possibility of private ownership of land plots, in particular, defense land. Legal entities acquire ownership of land plots on various legal grounds. The main ones are civil law transactions, inclusion of land plots in the authorized capital, and inheritance of land. Civil law transactions may include various types of contracts, such as sale and purchase, donation and exchange. Contribution of land to the authorized capital is important for the formation of the company’s assets, contributing to its financial stability. Inheritance of land plots is governed by inheritance law and can be applied to legal entities as heirs. In addition to the main grounds, the law also provides for other ways of acquiring land plots. These include court decisions, administrative acts of public authorities and other cases specifically provided for by law. For example, according to paragraph 6-1 of the Transitional Provisions of the Land Code of Ukraine, legal entities that previously had the right to permanently use state-owned or municipally owned land plots may purchase these plots without holding auctions. Conclusions and prospects for the development. Thus, legal entities have ample opportunities to acquire ownership of land plots, which allows them to effectively realize their business and other goals. Legislation provides a variety of legal grounds for this process, which contributes to the flexibility and adaptability of land relations in accordance with the needs of business and other areas of activity. Effective legal regulation of these processes is important for ensuring the rational use of land resources and sustainable economic development.

Introduction: Why Public Lands? Part I: Origins of the Public Domain Chapter 1: Building the National Commons Chapter 2: Disposing of the Public Domain: From Commons to Commodity Chapter 3: A Public Land System Emerges Part II: America's Public Land System Chapter 4: National Parks Chapter 5: National Forests Chapter 6: National Wildlife Refuges Chapter 7: Bureau of Land Management Lands Chapter 8: National Wilderness Preservation System: Wild and Scenic Rivers and National Scenic Trails Chapter 9: Parting Thoughts Appendix A: Major U.S. Public Land Laws and Other Key Turning Points Appendix B: Units within the National Park System Bibliography

The whole world is proclaiming carbon neutrality to prevent climate crisis. Korea itself announced of ‘2050 Carbon Neutrality Proclaim’ on October 28, 2020 and following this, ‘2050 Carbon Neutrality Vision’ on December 10. The carbon neutrality scenario is classified into emission, absorption and removal and as per absorption and removal, we may say CCUS is the key. Currently, individual acts such as Framework Act on Carbon Neutrality and Green Growth for Coping with Climate Crisis, Wastes Control Act, Management of Marine Garbage and Contaminated Marine Sediment Act, Act on Promotion of Technologies for Coping with Climate Change, Restriction of Special Taxation Act, etc. stipulate about CCUS. Therefore, we have discussed about how to make an unified act in order to control carbon dioxide efficiently and rationally. In the process of the discussion, we studied about the problem of the aspects of public land law. For example, there are typical problems such as; 1) determining the public interest about carbon dioxide, 2) determining the obligation of securing land for carbon capture process and establishment of direct air capture, and, and 3) evaluation of environment influence and accommodation of storage. CCUS is not the one and only technology but a variety of technologies by each phase of capture, transportation, storage, and utilization. Also, there are many related government departments including Ministry of Science and ICT, Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy, Ministry of Environment, and Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries. This makes it a consolidated system issue. Therefore, an unified act is required to link all the problems together. Current proposal of the bill includes the way to solve the public land law aspect as; 1) stipulating the obligation of the person in charge of the capture to secure land, 2) expanding the scope of capture that will enable to capture carbon dioxide in everyday lives, 3) introducing reduction of charges for occupying and using public water surfaces, 4) preparing rules and regulations on safety control, 5) resident accommodations, etc.

The whole world is proclaiming carbon neutrality to prevent climate crisis. Korea itself announced of ‘2050 Carbon Neutrality Proclaim’ on October 28, 2020 and following this, ‘2050 Carbon Neutrality Vision’ on December 10. The carbon neutrality scenario is classified into emission, absorption and removal and as per absorption and removal, we may say CCUS is the key. Currently, individual acts such as Framework Act on Carbon Neutrality and Green Growth for Coping with Climate Crisis, Wastes Control Act, Management of Marine Garbage and Contaminated Marine Sediment Act, Act on Promotion of Technologies for Coping with Climate Change, Restriction of Special Taxation Act, etc. stipulate about CCUS. Therefore, we have discussed about how to make an unified act in order to control carbon dioxide efficiently and rationally. In the process of the discussion, we studied about the problem of the aspects of public land law. For example, there are typical problems such as; 1) determining the public interest about carbon dioxide, 2) determining the obligation of securing land for carbon capture process and establishment of direct air capture, and, and 3) evaluation of environment influence and accommodation of storage. CCUS is not the one and only technology but a variety of technologies by each phase of capture, transportation, storage, and utilization. Also, there are many related government departments including Ministry of Science and ICT, Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy, Ministry of Environment, and Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries. This makes it a consolidated system issue. Therefore, an unified act is required to link all the problems together. Current proposal of the bill includes the way to solve the public land law aspect as; 1) stipulating the obligation of the person in charge of the capture to secure land, 2) expanding the scope of capture that will enable to capture carbon dioxide in everyday lives, 3) introducing reduction of charges for occupying and using public water surfaces, 4) preparing rules and regulations on safety control, 5) resident accommodations, etc.

Journal Article Range Conservation and the Public Land Laws Get access none none Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar Journal of Forestry, Volume 34, Issue 11, November 1936, Pages 957–961, https://doi.org/10.1093/jof/34.11.957 Published: 01 November 1936

Public Land Law - Looking into the Future: The Need for a Final Judgment on the Validity of the Roadless Rule, Wyoming v. U.S. Dep't of Agric.,414 F.3d 1207 (10th Cir. 2005)