Washington is considering more data centers on public lands than Americans anticipated. Reports show that Nevada is one of the six Western states that has been picked to house three new projects on land controlled by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).
The Trump Administration’s executive order from July 2025, directing the use of federally owned land for data center development, foreshadowed the land imperialism that Nevada is facing today. The federal government owns roughly 85% of the state, and the BLM alone manages 63%. This is more than any other state in the union. Furthermore, BLM land is unappropriated, meaning the government holds and uses it for no designated purpose such as a national park. Instead, they lease it out to ranches and mines, while sometimes leaving it open to the public for recreation.
Nevada Never Got an Equal Deal
Effectively, Washington decides how the lands are used, while Nevadans watch. This raises constitutionality concerns. States must be admitted into the union on an equal footing with existing states. Because true sovereignty requires control over one’s own territory, heavy federal land ownership undermines a state’s independent governing authority.
Nevada is the textbook definition of unequal footing: a state admitted only on the condition that it forsake the use of its own land. This condition was never imposed on the original states.
How Boulder City Got Overruled
Now, industries of the future are spotlighting the age-old issue of the Silver State. Earlier this year, in Boulder City, the planning commission rejected a proposed data center. Before the city council could act, the company took the project to nearby federal land.
On June 26, the BLM approved the Townsite Data Center, the first one ever authorized on public lands, by amending an earlier right-of-way grant for a solar project. City officials say they were never given a chance to weigh in. While construction remains on hold after the city appealed the decision, the larger question looms: Who gets to decide what is built in Nevada?
Other States Get to Decide for Themselves
In states east of Colorado, the federal government has little control. Texas, Iowa, South Carolina, and a dozen other states have virtually no BLM-managed land. In Wisconsin, for example, the federal government owns just 5.3% of the entire state. When a developer wants to build a data center there, it buys or leases land from private owners, negotiates with local officials, and answers to state law. Their communities and legislatures participate, while the economic benefits stay local.
Nevada Gets the Costs. DC Gets the Taxes.
Conversely, in Nevada, a company can go to federal landlords and bypass local laws or regulations entirely. Federal land is exempt from local property taxes, while data centers on private land can generate millions of dollars in tax revenues to finance public services. In Boulder City alone, the town would lose out on $2.3 million in taxes from the data center moving to BLM land.
When a project is on federal land, local governments are left with the strain on power supply and emergency services without any offsetting revenue. While the tax funds accrue to federal coffers, Nevadans face all the externalities.
This is perhaps the best illustration of unequal footing. Nevada legislators have less say over what happens within the state’s borders than their Texas counterparts. Nevada ranchers have less land to use than their counterparts in Iowa. Nevada developers have much higher land costs for their projects than their Florida counterparts. Nevada has been a junior partner in the federal pact since statehood. This decision is simply the newest reminder.
Nevada Land Should Be Nevada’s Call
It is not surprising that data center developers are seeking the best conditions for their business plan. But it is noteworthy that the federal government, once again, is leaving Nevadans at a disadvantage by using their own land without their input. Local communities are well suited to develop new infrastructure and housing on their own land, and Congress should not do it for them.
When Nevada must keep asking Washington to use its own land, equal footing ceases being a constitutional guarantee and instead becomes a suggestion Washington ignores. That, not the data centers, is the real crisis.
Stay Ahead of What’s Happening in Nevada
Decisions about Nevada’s land, energy, schools, and tax dollars happen fast, and they often happen without Nevadans in the room. Sign up for our news updates and get the stories that matter to Nevada families, taxpayers, and communities delivered straight to your inbox.
