Angry citizens here in the American West are banking on Ronald Reagan's presidential victory to quell a range war that is now raging from Alaska to New Mexico. This 20th-century conflict, known as the Sagebrush Rebellion, pits ranchers, loggers, miners and others against Washington bureaucrats in a fight over the West's land, water and mineral resources.

Westerners are pushing for a new

federal policy toward their vast

lands and expect a sympathetic ear

from President-elect Reagan.

Westerners hope that this support will translate into a number of concessions: Greater control over federal timber and grazing lands, more federally financed water projects and an easing of government red tape and bureaucratic nit-picking, along with repeal of unpopular laws such as the 55-mileper-hour speed limit. Seeds of conflict. During President Carter's years in the White House, relations between the West and the federal government have deteriorated to the point where widespread resentment has flared into open conflict.

Named for the fragrant bush that abounds in the area, the Sagebrush Rebellion began as a fight over the federal government's vast land holdings and now encompasses almost any issue that causes friction between Washington and the West. "The Sagebrush Rebellion is an extremely complex, controversial and emotional bundle of issues," observes Utah Governor Scott Matheson.

Tactics in the conflict range from legal challenges of Washington's authority to outright defiance of federal laws. Irate Alaskans burned an airplane belonging to the National Park Service. Legislatures in Nevada, New Mexico, Washington, Wyoming, Utah and Arizona have passed laws laying claim to millions of acres of federal land inside their borders. In one of the boldest actions, Alaskan voters approved a proposal setting up a special statehood commission to "reconsider and recommend appropriate changes," a move viewed as the start of a quixotic attempt to secede from the Union.

Although Westerners themselves often disagree sharply on these issues, they are unified on one point: A belief that the region's destiny is being dictated by outsiders who do not understand the West and view it as a dumping ground for problems Eastern states are unwilling to accept. Examples:

• Ranchers claim that overzealous environmentalists have made the mountains and deserts safer for coyotes than for livestock.
• The 55-mile-per-hour speed limit may save lives and fuel in the East, area residents say, but it is unneeded in lightly populated areas of the West where it may take a rancher hours to reach the nearest town.
• Private landowners complain that they often are denied access to their property because it is surrounded by federal land.
• Alaska Governor Jay Hammond voices outrage over federal efforts to ban oil exploration in the Arctic Wildlife Range, believed to hold billions of barrels of oil, while preparing to lease drilling tracts in Kodiak and Bristol bays, which are two of the nation's richest fishing areas. "Onshore technology is far more advanced and safe than offshore," argues the governor. "Why don't we first do that which we know best how to do?"
• Timber companies report being forced to lay off loggers for lack of access to federal forests where trees are rotting on the ground. Lumber operators also sneer at the U.S. Forest Service's recent practice of letting "naturally caused" forest fires burn freely while fighting blazes that are caused by humans.

Controversy between the West and the federal government is nothing new. The region has depended on, but resented, Washington involvement in its activities since the first settlers arrived more than 150 years ago. Problems, however, have intensified under Carter, who failed to carry a single Western state in 1976 and 1980, with the exception of Hawaii. Many Westerners contend that the President has punished the region's lack of political support by halting work on vital water projects, hiking fees for grazing cattle on public land and attempting to break up large farms irrigated by federal water systems. Administration officials retort that they are simply trying to halt pork-barrel political practices that benefit a few wealthy ranchers, farmers and corporations in the West at the expense of taxpayers everywhere.

At the heart of the controversy is the land. The federal government owns more than half the land in the West, 700 million acres that include 96 percent of Alaska, 81 percent of Nevada, 66 percent of Utah, 64 percent of Idaho, 53 percent of Oregon, 48 percent of Wyoming, 36 percent of Colorado.

"This vast federal holding means we are not our own landlords," says Colorado Governor Richard D. Lamm. "We cannot control our own destiny."

Adds Arizona State Senator Anne Lindeman of Phoenix: "Everybody thinks that the Sagebrush Rebellion is just for the benefit of cattlemen. The basic concern is that people here have nothing to say about the large hunks of federally owned and managed lands."

The last straw. The spark that ignited the revolt was the 1976 Federal Land Policy and Management Act, which says that public land must be kept in perpetual trust by the federal government. The legislation dashed Western hopes that the U.S. would gradually turn control of public lands over to local governments, which residents argue could do a better job of managing public land than bureaucrats stationed in Washington. "We've been robbed blind for 100 years by mismanagement of federal lands," declares Huey Johnson, director of California's Resources Agency.

Adds Nevada Assemblyman Dean Rhoads, one of the leaders of the rebellion: "It's worth noting that virtually all Western states are healthy financially, none with a budget deficit. Yet we are told that the federal government, with a debt the human mind cannot even comprehend, can better afford to manage the land."

Environmentalists, including some Westerners, express fears that if Washington gave free rein to local governments, the West would be ravaged by what Interior Secretary Cecil Andrus calls the "rape-and-ruin boys," real-estate developers, mining firms and lumber companies.

"State officials, regardless of good intentions, would find it hard to resist the overwhelming pressure to sell off the public land," warns Andrus.

More disturbing than federal land ownership, in the eyes of many Westerners, is increasing government restriction on uses of public lands. In the past four years, the Carter administration and Congress have placed 37.8 million acres of land in parks, wilderness areas, wildlife refuges and other categories that ban or curtail commercial development. Also, Congress has just approved legislation that restricts development on another 104 million acres in Alaska. Tightened enforcement of federal environmental rules and laws protecting endangered species of wildlife is further shrinking the amount of land available for farming, ranching, mining and timbering. Compounding the squeeze are sharp population increases in most of the states of the region‹including growths in the last decade of 25.5 percent in Colorado, 38 percent in Arizona, 29 percent in Utah and 22 percent in New Mexico.

All over the West, business and civic groups are springing up to fight attempts to place more land off limits for developers. In Idaho, Sagebrush Rebellion, Inc., a business group, is battling a proposal to expand the Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area. The refuge, one of the largest nesting grounds for eagles, hawks and falcons in the U.S., has grown from 26,000 acres in 1971 to 539,000 acres in 1977. Now, Washington is attempting to add another 300,000 acres, an expansion that would idle some 159,000 acres of irrigated cropland.

"Further expansion of this area is not only unnecessary, but it will seriously encroach upon productive farmlands and generate a negative impact on the local economy," declares Representative George Hansen (R-Idaho).

In Nevada, citizens are up in arms over plans to base the controversial MX-missile system in their states. Opponents contend that the 24,000 square miles needed for the project would displace-many ranchers and farmers and preclude development of energy and mineral resources.

Many Westerners maintain that they would not object so strongly to fed were not accompanied by what they see as red tape, bureaucratic bungling and needless interference in daily activities of those who depend on the land for a livelihood. Charlie Lee, a third-generation rancher in New Mexico who leases more than 90,000 acres of federal land complains that bureaucrats now tell him how many cattle to run, where to pasture them and where, when and what type of windmills, fences and corrals he can build.

"When the feds take control to that extent, the ranch operator is no longer necessary‹he's a federal-government caretaker," laments Lee.

Adds Colorado's Lamm: "What the federal government fails to do is differentiate between its role as landlord and its role as sovereign. They [government bureaucrats] can't figure out whether they're landlord or king."

Burned out. In one case that has attracted widespread resentment, Gerald Chaffin, a contractor, was forced to burn his home of 10 years near Midwest, Wyo., after the Bureau of Land Management discovered that it was on government land. BLM officials said the house was illegally built 47 years ago. Chaffin and his wife were the third owners. Nevertheless, he was ordered to remove all traces of the house by October 31 or face an 18-month prison sentence and a $6,000 fine. Unable to pay for its removal, Chaffin doused the house with gasoline and set it afire.

All this will change, Westerners hope, with Reagan sitting in the White House. During a campaign stop in Idaho Falls, Idaho, he pledged: "The next administration won't treat the West as if it were not worthy of attention. The next administration will reflect the values and goals of the Sagebrush Rebellion. Indeed, we can turn the Sagebrush Rebellion into the Sagebrush Solution."