Well ok then.
You accept a situation like that, you get a situation like that.
People have freedom of choice. I choose not to have abrogated property rights, “law of the west” notwithstanding.
That’s the way property rights have worked in the west since the states were admitted to the US. For example, in Nevada, the state had to cede all lands not expressly claimed as private property to the US government when the state was admitted in 1864. Ranchers at that time were not interested in the land’s surface rights, only water and grass, so that’s what they claimed. Miners at that time were not interested in the surface rights, only the mineral rights. So the way they got to tie up the maximal value for their capital was to get only those rights.
The only outfits that got land in “lock, stock and barrel” deals were the railroads, the historic Mormon ranches and ranches that were deeded lands prior to the 1848 treaty with Mexico. When the trans-continental rails were completed, the US government gave the rail companies every other section for a path 20 miles either side of the rails themselves to the RR companies. This is today known as the “checkerboard” area, and in Nevada comprises a huge portion of what little private land there is in the state.
If I had my preference, the areas west of the 100th parallel would break away from the US and leave the eastern half of the US to wallow in their own problems. But that ain’t gonna happen any time soon, so split estate is what the easterners shoved down on the west over 100 years ago, and it is what the eastern powers use to control the west today, so westerners have to use what we’ve got.