I wish that I knew more about the land in question. If the land was not purchased from a private owner as required by the 5th Amendment, or purchased from the state with the consent of the state legislature as required by the Constitution’s Clause 17 of Section 8 of Article I, then the feds do not own or have control over the land imo.
The controversy hinges on the area’s murky boundaries. The state line between Oklahoma and Texas is pegged to the middle of the Red River through the 1920s Supreme Court decision. Go north of an imaginary line dividing the river down the middle, called the medial line, and you’re in Oklahoma. Head to the small cliffs to the south that the river has carved out, called cut banks, and you’re in Texas. Anywhere in between is federal land.
The problem is, rivers change course. Under the court’s decision, changes that take place over time, called accretion, also shift the state line between Texas and Oklahoma. More sudden changes, called avulsion, don’t. That’s created uncertainty as to who owns what.
Court decisions have upheld the federal claim on the land. Texan Tommy Henderson, who was involved in a 1986 case over land rights between ranchers from both states, had paid $300,000 for 140 acres, but a court ruled it actually belonged to the government.