More than 3 million acres of federal public lands in the West could be put up for sale under the latest budget reconciliation proposal put forth by the U.S. Senate’s Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
The proposed bill text, which was released this week, would require the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service to sell between one-half of 1 percent and three-quarters of 1 percent of the land they own in 11 states, including the Four Corners states of Colorado, Utah, Arizona, and New Mexico. The only Western state excluded is Montana.
People could “nominate” tracts of land for disposal, under the current draft of the bill.
“They have to open up a nominations process,” said Aaron Weiss, deputy director of the Center for Western Priorities, a Denver-based conservation group. “If you want to build a trophy home in the White River National Forest [in Colorado], you could nominate it and they would have to put it up for sale,” he told KSJD by phone.
The lands would not include national parks or monuments, other lands with special federal protections, or lands with currently existing grazing or mining rights.
However, this proposal for land sales coincides with the recent release of an opinion by the Department of Justice asserting that presidents do have the legal power to undo national monuments designated by other presidents – which could mean some lands currently under protection would be taken out of it.
That legal opinion, signed by Deputy Assistant Attorney General Lanora C. Pettit of the Office of Legal Counsel, states, “For the reasons discussed above, we conclude that the Antiquities Act permits the President to alter a prior declaration of a national monument, including by finding that the ‘landmarks,’ ‘structures,’ or ‘objects’ identified in the prior declaration either never were or no longer are deserving of the Act’s protections.”
The Trump administration has shown great interest in eliminating or downsizing a number of national monuments, including Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante national monuments in Utah, as well as turning public lands over to the private sector.
The purported reason for the sale of public lands in the West as designated in the draft bill text is for housing or “community development needs.” What those needs might be would be defined by the secretary of the interior for BLM lands and the secretary of agriculture for Forest Service property. Between 2.2 million and 3.3 million acres of land would be sold over the next five years.
In a statement, U.S. Sen. Mike Lee of Utah, who has for years advocated for the sale of federal public lands, said that this action would mean “turning federal liabilities into taxpayer value, while making housing more affordable for hardworking American families.”
However, it’s unclear how much of the land would ever be used for affordable housing. The director of the Center for Western Priorities, Kate Groetzinger, said in a blog in April that “efforts to build housing on public lands that don’t include meaningful density and affordability requirements are nothing more than a Trojan horse to privatize a vital public asset that increases quality of life for everyone, regardless of income, in the West.”
The draft bill text says the secretaries should give priority to places that are adjacent to already-developed areas or have access to existing infrastructure.
“But there aren’t 3 million acres close to public infrastructure,” Weiss said. “You’d be looking at tens of thousands of acres, not millions of acres.”
One analysis, done by the Center for American Progress, said that in ten Western states, less than 1 percent of the BLM land sits within 10 miles of significant population centers.
“. . . with few exceptions, the public lands managed by the BLM are not near the urban and suburban areas facing the most severe housing availability bottlenecks,” the report says.
“The absence of nearby infrastructure needed for housing development—such as roads, water, sewage systems, and power—would drive up the cost of most public land development. Because of this, most public lands are not suited for affordable and middle-income housing and are instead more attractive for expensive vacation homes, luxury rental properties, or commercial ventures that could offset the high capital costs.”
More than 40 conservation, hunting, and fishing groups sent a letter June 6 to the Republican and Democratic leaders in the Senate saying,
“. . . we write to encourage you to keep federal public land sales out of the budget reconciliation bill.”
They said selling public lands through the budget reconciliation process bypasses public comment and the money from the sales would likely go to the general fund rather than be directed toward conservation.
“Third, and perhaps most critically, sales could include lands that are vital to hunting, fishing, and outdoor recreation, particularly in rural areas,” the letter continues.
“Hunting, fishing, camping, hiking and other outdoor recreation pursuits are deeply ingrained in our cultural heritage and provide a significant driver for rural economies. The outdoor recreation industry has demonstrated a $1.2 trillion economic output nationally. Loss of access to valuable public land could impact hunters, anglers, and other recreationists who rely on public lands for their traditions, and could adversely affect outdoor businesses, guides and outfitters, local retailers, lodging companies and many others who rely on outdoor recreation for their livelihoods.”
The letter was signed by 44 groups, including Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, Trout Unlimited, the National Wildlife Federation, and the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership.
The House and Senate are continuing to work out language in the budget reconciliation bill, hoping to get it passed by July 4.
Late in May, another provision in the draft bill that would have sold off some lands in Nevada and Utah was removed after pushback.
Weiss said there is no guarantee that this version will not make it through, however.
“We’re taking the threat very seriously,” he said.
