An interesting review. He makes the point that the central government is required to treat different parts of the country equally. This is not possible if the federal government owns most of the territory in some states and very little in others.
He posits that government was not intended to retain property. Jurisdiction over real property was to be a state issue. States controlled land titles, land transfers, inheritance..."virtually all aspects of real estate laws and usage".
He posits that the most important function of the Property Clause was to dispose of territory property and create states. Such property was to be sold to private parties and moneys were to be used to pay off public debt and reduce taxes.
Equal Footing....
since the admission of Tennessee in 1796, Congress has included in each State's act of admission a clause providing that the State enters the Union "on an equal footing with the original States in all respects whatever."
I wouldn't say Nevada is on equal footing to Texas, would you?
I agree. Nevada is not on an equal footing with Texas. After 150- years as a state, the Fed has had more than ample time to dispose of public land in Nevada. My sense is that the open range was assigned a declared purpose long ago and that was for grazing. The law of adverse possession might not apply, but “adverse utilization” has been established. A fair court would award that land to the state and the purpose for which it has been utilized now for generations.