This essay briefly outlines a potential method for distributing much of the land now controlled by the U.S. Federal Government. This essay previews a section for a forthcoming Geography textbook on conflict geography, expanding ideas from my book On Multiform War. Various sections in On Multiform War already cover land and property strategies, territorial scrutiny, the significance of cadasters and of the problem-solving power of geographic information systems.
Grok helped me write this essay. Thanks, Grok!
The Great American Land Lottery
Briefly, the idea is to distribute land controlled by the federal government to ownership by American citizen taxpayers. The endeavor would put more power back into the hands of the citizenry and would help to pay down the federal debt. Basics of the plan are as follows:
-The federal government would distribute two acres of land to each taxpayer;
-The two-acre parcels would be chosen at random by a GIS. Some receivers would receive parcels worth little, other parcels would be worth a lot. The program would not be described as an equitable-value redistribution effort. It would be a lottery;
-No National Parks land would be involved;
-The “taxpayers” originally receiving the land would not include public corporations;
-No elected federal officials would receive land;
-Federal employees of the rank GS 15 and over would not receive land;
-After being received, the parcels could not be sold for six months. Parcels could be gifted, only once, during the first six months, but the grantee could not sell during the first year and would have to sell on the online market. (In other words, anyone receiving the gifted parcel would be subject to the same rules as the initial receiver.);
-The period from six months to one year would involve proposed sales only, no final sales. All offers and counters would be publicly transparent;
-Final sales would be conducted from one year to twenty-four months from the initial distribution;
– The public internet sale period would end after 24 months. During the following six months, any unsold parcels could be sold back to the government by the initial receivers at market rate;
-After the twenty-four months, the internet market is closed and all sales of received land will take place on the normal land market. However, land distributed through the program would still be restricted to US citizen buyers for ten years;
-The federal government could take a sales tax on lands sold during the sales period. The profit would be used to pay down the federal debt;
-The federal government would continue to be responsible for land maintenance and any liabilities throughout the sales period until a final sale is made;
-All purchasers would have to be US citizens or corporations wholly owned by US citizens;
-All sales would take place through the online marketplace during the twenty-four month period;
-All access disputes would be settled by managers of the online site;
-Access to the distributed parcels would normally be granted across any other parcels;
-The initial GIS would cut out higher altitude lands to optimally reduce access problems;
-The initial GIS would filter in other ways to avoid initial access difficulties and to build a buffer around certain sensitive lands, and select non-park recreational sites;
-The online market would have additional land parcels available to help settle problems of land access;
-No property taxes would be assessed on any of the original receivers of parcels;
-After the initial sales period, original receivers (or giftees during the initial period) could sell their parcels back to the federal government at slightly below market value. That land would then be sold directly by the federal government to help pay down the federal debt.
-After twenty-four months, unsold parcels would vest in fee simple to receivers if the original receivers. Any and every sale of parcels during the ensuing ten years would be subject to a federal sales tax. These tax monies would be used to pay down the federal debt.
– A 10 million-acre pilot could test the concept, refining it for full rollout.
The US federal government controls use of about 640 million acres of land belonging to the American nation. The government effects control of this land, mostly in Western states, through agencies like the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), U.S. Forest Service (USFS), National Park Service (NPS), and Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). The model I propose excludes National Parks, which account for about 79.9 million acres (as of 2018, per NPS data). Subtracting this along with military bases, wildlife refuges, and some parcels leaves roughly 550 million acres of federal land potentially available for distribution. Other exclusions might further reduce this, but for simplicity, we can assume that around 560 million acres might be readily available for redistribution.
The IRS reported approximately 157.5 million individual income tax returns processed for tax year 2022 (the most recent comprehensive data available as of early 2025). This number includes single filers, joint filers, and heads of household but excludes corporate tax returns. Federal employees at GS-15 and above number roughly 8,000–10,000 (based on OPM data), and there are 535 elected federal officials (Congress plus the President and Vice President). These exclusions are negligible compared to 157.5 million, so let’s round to 157 million eligible tax returns for estimation. Because we would want the married joint filers to also get 2 acres each, the actual number of receivers rises to about 211 million taxpayers.
To distribute 2 acres per taxpayer to 211 million people would require about 422 million acres (211 million eligible taxpayers × 2 acres each). With 560 million acres available \, this leaves a surplus under government control of about 139 million acres (For comparison, Germany covers about 89 million acres.). Feasibility isn’t just about raw numbers of course, but there is certainly more than enough, including for protective filters.
Excluding high-altitude parcels in National Forests (e.g., above 8,000 feet) or lands more than X miles from existing roads/trails could ensure most parcels are reachable. The BLM and USFS already map their lands with GIS data on elevation, roads, and usage (grazing, timber, etc.). For example, limiting to parcels within 5 miles of a public road could cut out truly isolated spots, though it might shrink the pool below 560 million acres — maybe to 400–450 million, depending on the filters.
Buyers (individuals or corporations) will naturally aggregate parcels, especially in desirable areas. A farmer might buy 50 adjacent 2-acre lots in Montana to create a 100-acre ranch, solving access issues organically as larger tracts form. The 6-month holding period prevents immediate flips, giving the market time to stabilize.
Since agencies like BLM and USFS already maintain these lands (e.g., wildfire mitigation, grazing oversight), extending this for 2.5 years doesn’t add costs beyond current budgets ($1.3 billion for BLM, $5.1 billion for USFS in 2023). Liabilities (e.g., a hiker injured on a parcel) remain federal, shielding receivers.
Framing it as a lottery — you might get sand or ski slopes, no guarantees” — is honest and defuses equity complaints. A taxpayer with a dud parcel in Nevada shrugs it off (no loss), while one near a ski resort celebrates. The key is clear communication: this isn’t welfare or entitlement; it’s a chance at value, with the market sorting winners and losers. Transparency (“it’s a lottery”) and GIS filters help. A minimum value threshold filter (e.g., $50/acre appraised) could be used to exclude the worst scraps. This might drop viable acres further, even to requiring adjustments in the total acreage received (e.g., 1.8 acres per person).
The proposal period is to reveal prices, but speculators could still dominate, buying up prime land cheap if receivers undervalue it. Controlled speculation fuels the market, balanced by transparent appraisals. Having free, transparent government appraisals during the proposal period might help level the playing field some. It’s an area where AI might help.
There is a complex legal environment to consider, of course. Some changes to the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and to some environmental laws would have to be addressed in the legislation enabling the distribution lottery. Filtering out high-altitude and sensitive lands would reduce opposition, but transferring 420 million acres needs congressional approval and would face environmentalist legislative and then legal challenges.
Access easements across parcels (federal or sold) could clog transference, as sales finalize. Some of the surplus acreage could be used for access easements and to automate some dispute resolution via GIS (e.g., “closest road easement granted unless contested”). In the most difficult cases, a timeout period could be set after which the federal government would offer a buyout to the original receivers. The GIS filters and extended sales period address access and market stability to some degree, while the lottery framing and federal continuity of management and liability keep costs low for participants and government alike.
All in all, there are no insurmountable practical reasons for not distributing the land to the citizenry. The most difficult are purely legislative/political. GIS could easily map and filter the 422 million acres, proving the plan’s feasibility with precision. A pilot program (e.g., 10 million acres first) might be good to test legality and public reaction. It could include a randomly chosen set of taxpayers who would then no longer be eligible in a scaled-up effort if the pilot were successful. This is doable — Congress just needs to move. Let’s start with a pilot and rewrite land history.