I would read Federalist #43, parts 2, 4, and 5.

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa43.htm

If the State has jurisdiction authority over the land that would necessarily include the right to eminent-domain land who's title is being held by the Federal government who clearly does not have jurisdiction authority.

The so called supremacy clause would only be applicable if the Federal Constitution gave the Federal government to own land in any situation other then that described in Article 4 Section 3, or Article 1 Section 8 Clause 17.

Clearly as the whole point of the 2 aforementioned sections established, that power does NOT exist, otherwise there would be no point behind the power of Article 1 Section 8 Clause 17, as the State could not interfere with the supreme general authority over federally owned land.

Seems to indicate the Federal Government did not simply acquire first ownership of any land until the Louisiana Purchase, where the Federal government for the first time directly acquired jurisdictional territory as defined in Article 4 Section 3 Clause 2.

While at the same time parts 2, 4, and 5 of Federalist #43
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa43.htm

Seems to be written in light of this development as the Feds had already acquired territorial jurisdiction of some of the land by cession of some but not all of the States, thus with the reality of overlapping clams particularly in the North the Article 4 Section 3 clause 2's line: "nothing in the Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular State."

Seems to make a lot of sense as James Madison explained it in part 5 of Federalist 43 in saying the Federal government cannot wield territorial jurisdiction until such time as the all other such clams have been resolved.
see definition of the word "proviso":
" a clause in a document or contract that embodies a condition or stipulation"
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/proviso

Anyway the key issue here is the differences between federal territorial jurisdiction and that of state Jurisdiction, and whether or not the Federal government can Admit a state tot he union and not recognizes the state as having full jurisdiction over all the territory the Federal government has recognized that state as having.

I would like to look further into the issue of the Eastern States and how they have managed to obtain full jurisdiction over so much of their land while the Western States have so little…

Were they granted full initial title to all of their land as well as full jurisdictional rights in their initial statehood?

Is it even possible for both the State and the Federal government to have such State level jurisdiction within the recognized bounds of a State?

If so why then do we have Article 4 Section 3, or Article 1 Section 8 Clause 17? Both of which clearly segregate the important of the difference between federal State level jurisdiction, and State State level jurisdiction over land.

I could be wrong on this and if so, can someone tell me where the federal government has the power to take property for public use?

This post was mentioned on Twitter by TenthAmendment: #10th: Utah Governor signs eminent domain to seize federal land http://bit.ly/9UqWgk…