Editors' Summary: Fully one-third of the country—including nearly half of California—is owned by the federal government. Nonetheless, a shroud of mystique surrounds the public lands, the history of which is inextricably intertwined with the history of westward expansion. The very concept of federal ownership of land physically located within sovereign states logically leads to conflict concerning rights, responsibilities, and powers. Surprisingly, the Supreme Court has only rarely had to directly face state/federal conflicts involving the public lands. In its recent decision in California Coastal Commission v. Granite Rock Co., the Supreme Court delved for the first time in a decade into the sensitive issue of the extent of state authority on public lands. The Court held that the State of California could regulate mining in a national forest located along the scenic Big Sur coast. This Article examines the case itself and its relationship to the broader concerns posed by states' increasing involvement in the regulation of environmental quality. The authors conclude that although welcome as a verification of dual state/federal regulation of private activities on the public lands, the decision fails to resolve many questions concerning the application of the Court's preemption doctrine to the public lands area.