Even before the Constitution of the United States was “signed, sealed and delivered” in 1789, the Land Ordinance of 1785 and the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 had laid the foundation for our young nation to establish an education system.
From the late 18th century through the middle of the 20th century, the federal government granted control of millions of acres of federal land to each state as it entered the Union. These lands were given in trust, with the stipulation that proceeds from their sale or lease be used to support various public institutions— most notably, public elementary and secondary schools and universities. These state land grants have played an important role in the development of the American system of public education and continue to provide revenues to maintain that system today.
When it comes to researching the history of school trust lands, it’s easy to get buried in the proverbial parcel of papers penned on the subject. I was fortunate, however, to come across what political science professor Clive S. Thomas, University of Alaska Southeast, considers to be the benchmark work on the subject. Subsequent reading of the writings of others seemed to confirm this. The book, authored by professors of forestry Jon Sounder, Arizona State University and Sally Fairfax, University of California at Berkeley, is titled: “State Trust Lands: History, Management, and Sustainable Use,” © 1995 by the University of Kansas Press, is best read with a snorkel as you will need to come up for air every few pages. As the authors explain in the preface regarding school trust lands, “Very few programs in this or any other nation have such a deep, clear past or such a consistent core.”
The Land Ordinance of 1785 dictated that the new western lands – which included Minnesota, as part of the Northwest Territory – were to be surveyed and divided into townships of seven statute mile squares and 36 sections each, and then organized into territories by Congress. Title to the 16th section in every township was vested to the state; i.e. owned by the state in trust for the public schools of Minnesota, they are not owned by the local school district as one might be inclined to surmise.
In 1857, Minnesota was the first state to be granted two sections (16 and 36) per township for the use of schools, as well as 72 sections for a university. Other states would follow suit.
The grant ultimately resulted in 2.9 million acres being given to the state for the use of Minnesota public schools. By 1900, much of this land had been sold in efforts to support public schools. Also included in school trust lands today are remaining lands from two other federal grants: the Swampland grant of about 4.7 million acres in 1860 (no, it’s not located in Florida), and the Internal Improvement grant of 500,000 acres in 1866 (mainly for the creation of transportation infrastructure). Today 2.5 million acres of school trust lands and an additional 1 million acres of mineral rights remain and are managed by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR).
That’s a lot of land! And as one might anticipate – almost immediately after the Revolutionary War and the colonies’ cession of their western lands to the new government – concern began to spread about the management of school trust lands.
As described in the introduction to the Center on Education Policy’s (CEP) 2011 background paper on pubic schools and the original federal land grant program, “The relationship between the federal government and state and local governments in the United States is an uncommon one among nations. Throughout American history, these branches of government have struggled to find the right balance between unity and structure on one hand, and the exercise of state and local control on the other.”
Professors Souder and Fairfax would counsel, “The agreement between the federal government and each new state to grant lands for public institutions established a trust relationship.” In addition to complying with the trustor’s (federal government) instructions, the trustee (states or local government) was charged with a series of responsibilities governing how the trust should be managed. “Essentially, these responsibilities included managing the trust honestly, skillfully, in good faith, and in the best interest of the trust and the beneficiary. The trustee had to manage the asset (the granted land) in the best interest and for the benefit of the beneficiary (the schools). Thus, the federal land grants, through this trust system, established a triangle of influence and control among the federal government, the states and townships, and the schools.” (CEP, 2011)
The State of Minnesota retains 31 percent of the original 8 million acres of school trust lands with the majority of these lands concentrated in our neck of the woods – of the 86,000 acres of school trust lands located within the BWCAW roughly 26,000 are within Cook County.
One particularly sensitive intersection of federal and state power was, and still is, the management of land and the valuable resources it often contains.
Much has been written— recall the proverbial parcel of papers—about the legal, economic, and administrative aspects of these grant lands and trusts, since the authority over and management of these lands has important implications for economic and commercial development, the environment, state’s rights, and other issues. (CEP, 2011)
When a trust is established it invokes an enormous range of rules, defined over centuries in British common law and more recently in American common law, codified with some state-by-state variations, and which are enforceable in the courts. Most of the rules define the obligations of the trustee: to proceed with undivided loyalty to the beneficiary; to deal with the beneficiary with fairness, openness, honesty, and disclose fully to the beneficiary; to exercise prudence, skill and diligence in caring for the trust; to make the trust productive; to preserve and protect the trust property. (Souder and Fairfax)
State trust lands are worthy of attention just for themselves. Because they are unfamiliar to so many, observers tend to assume that their resources are insignificant. This is quite incorrect. Next week we will dive into this facet of school trust lands . . . I suggest you locate your snorkel.
Leave a Reply