Public Land Sale Still Alive! – Senator Lee’s Public Land’s Sell-Off—Act Two

Last week, I wrote a blog breaking down Senator Lee’s (R-UT) proposal to mandate the sale of 2-3 million acres of Bureau of Land Management land and National Forest land in 11 western states. Well, a lot has happened since then, which means an update is warranted. As a reminder, on June 11th, Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) released a proposal as part of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee’s contribution to the Senate’s budget reconciliation bill—otherwise known as the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” mandating the sale of millions of acres of public lands across the west. 

On June 23nd, we woke up to the news that the Senate Parliamentarian struck the land sale provision from the larger reconciliation bill for violating something called the Byrd rule. This complicated rule requires, in general terms, that in order to avoid a sixty-vote threshold for passing a bill, language must be focused on raising revenue or cutting expenses, not policy.  As long as it meets that requirement, the bill can pass with a simple majority. However, not one to give up, late in the evening on June 24th, Senator Lee decided to take another run at selling public lands with amended language to his prior bill. As of the time of writing this blog, he has not confirmed that the next circulating among the public can be attributed to him. But it largely matches what he’s said publicly that he intends to do. Since there isn’t much time left before the Senate acts, it makes sense to operate as though this is the new text.  

So, like the prior blog, here’s a no-frills breakdown of what’s changed and what’s stayed the same in Senator Lee’s Proposal. 

Mandates a Massive Sell-Off of Public Land

First, Sen. Lee did remove National Forest land from the mandatory sale, but the bill continues to mandate the sale of large amounts of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands. The amended bill requires the Secretary of the Interior to begin disposing of, “as soon as practicable” after bill passage, and every 60 days after that: 

• Not less than 0.25% and not more than 0.50% of all BLM managed surface acres nationwide (which is slightly less than the .5% to .75% the prior language required); and

Like before, framing this in terms of percentage of overall acreage instead of actual acres is a clever way to make it look like these sales do not impact much land. However, this translates into a mandate that the BLM sell roughly at least 612,500 acres, and at most 1.225 million acres of public lands—within 5 years. On the high end, that’s an area about the size of Delaware. On the low end, it’s more than twice the size of Rocky Mountain National Park. It may not be 3 million acres anymore, but it’s still a lot of land. We do not even know if there is demand or need to sell all of these acres for housing, yet this bill mandates sale.

Where Would Sales Occur, and What’s Exempted from Sale

Like his prior draft, lands are eligible for sale in 11 western states—all of them from the Rockies to the Pacific—except Montana. Within those states, millions of acres are excluded from sale. For example, there are 15 different exemptions for lands designated by Congress or the Antiquities Act for things like National Parks, Wilderness Areas, and National Monuments. However, that’s where the similarities end. The new provisions also exclude from sale: 

• “An existing grazing permit or lease.” This only includes permits that exist at the time land is nominated for sale. Any vacant allotments could be subject to sale, including those that have pending applications for restocking with livestock.
• “A valid existing right that is incompatible with the development of housing or any infrastructure and amenities to support local needs associated with housing.” This one opens the door for selling parcels that might have an active oil or gas lease. Drilling technology is so advanced today that it could be possible to access oil and gas resources from parcels that do not lie directly over the mineral resources. That means BLM surface land could be sold for something like housing, or infrastructure, and still have oil or gas extraction occurring under those homes.  
• “Not located in an eligible State.” This means that BLM land cannot be sold anywhere except the 11 western states mentioned above. 
• “Not Located within 5 miles of the border of a population center.” This proposal theoretically narrows where lands could be sold, however, as described below, “population center” is not defined, which could open far more lands for potential disposal.  

So, with all of these exclusions, what is actually eligible for sale? Well, it is quite difficult to ascertain because the bill does not define “population center.” Interpreting this provision is left entirely to the discretion of the Secretary of the Interior. Certainly, a population center could include cities like Las Vegas, St. George, Rock Springs, and Grand Junction. But, could it include towns of just a few hundred people? What about a Truck Stop with a few tiny homes to house employees? Or, a ranch 50 miles from a city that has several generations living in multiple homes on the property? How about a conglomeration of cabins sitting on 40-acre parcels, 10 or more miles from a city? The point is, without defining the term, there’s a potential for significant acreages to be opened for sale that are nowhere near communities with housing deficiencies. 

Like the first iteration of the bill, this means that without further definition, lands subject to sale could potentially include degraded parcels in or near municipalities, but could also include things like Wilderness Study Areas, Inventoried Roadless Areas, and countless parcels of remote, wild, and lightly managed lands that offer prime elk, mule deer, pronghorn, and upland bird habitat. 

All of this means that determining which lands are truly eligible for sale is a guessing game. Once again, the author of the public land sale provision did not provide any maps of his own depicting lands eligible for disposal, which means the public has to try to figure it out on their own in about 24-48 hours, which is when Senate leadership hopes to vote on the overall reconciliation bill.

 

What Lands Will Be Sold? It Remains Vague—And That’s the Problem

Under the amended bill, the Secretary of Interior (BLM) can nominate lands for sale. However, the bill still allows “interested parties” to nominate land.

The term “interested parties” remains undefined. It expressly includes states and local governments. However, without further definition, and just like the original bill, it may also include developers, corporations, individuals, wealthy landowners, or even foreign entities or governments. 

The prioritization of what lands to sell does not change with this amendment. Once the Secretary or Interested Parties nominate land, the Secretary must prioritize lands for sale that are (1) nominated by States or local governments; (2) adjacent to existing developed areas; (3) have access to existing infrastructure; (4) are suitable for residential housing; (5) reduce checkerboard land patterns; or 6) are isolated tracts that are inefficient to manage. 

Again, the listed priorities are not an exclusive list. The Secretary has broad discretion to prioritize other types of land he or she wishes to sell under a very squishy purpose (detailed below). Importantly, despite several social media posts from Sen. Lee claiming that his bill would not impact hunters or other recreationists, there remains no requirement that nominations consider impacts to public access, wildlife values, water, or important traditional uses like hunting and fishing.

Purpose of Land Sales: Housing Remains the Justification—But Not the Requirement

Proponents of selling public lands have marketed this bill as a solution to the West’s housing crisis, claiming that these land sales will free up space for “affordable housing.” Senator Lee repeatedly claimed that this bill is only intended to address the affordable housing crisis in the country. But, his new amendments to the bill, still will still not address the affordable housing crisis. In fact, the new language once again does not use the word “affordable” a single time. The closest it comes to considering affordable housing remains unchanged from the prior version of the bill. It says that the one nominating land for disposal must explain the extent to which developing the parcel would “address local housing needs (including housing supply and affordability).” But, the very next section, which mandates what the Secretary considers when selling a property, does not require prioritizing affordability.  In fact, it does not even require that the land be used for housing of any kind.

The original text said that lands must be used “solely for housing or to address associated community needs”—a phrase that is undefined and left up to the Secretary to interpret. As mentioned in my prior blog, “Associated community needs” could include luxury homes, data centers, golf courses, business parks, or any number of other uses that have little or nothing to do with affordability, or even housing. 

The proposed new language strikes the “associated community needs” language and replaces it with “solely for the development of housing or to address any infrastructure and amenities to support local needs associated with housing,” which is once again undefined and left up to the Secretary to interpret. As before, “infrastructure and amenities” could include everything from golf courses and data centers to gated communities and strip malls. Use your imagination—everything is on the table.  

 

Mandated Land Sales Give Preference to States, Local Governments and Large Landowners

Admittedly, the lands most likely to be sold under this bill are those near western communities—though as a reminder, “population center” remains undefined, and doesn’t necessarily mean incorporated communities. That said, the land closest to communities is often the most valuable real estate around. Anyone who has tried to buy property near Jackson, Flagstaff, Bend, Vail, or St. George knows these lands don’t come cheap. Selling them at fair market value (as the bill continues to require) makes affordable housing even less likely. If the author really wanted to make land available for affordable housing, there are ways to do so—starting with capping the sales price, defining affordable and tying it to income. This bill does none of those things. 

The amended bill still gives states or local governments a right of first refusal on land purchases. What does this mean? Well, it means if a Tribe, corporation, individual, or other interested person has earned the right to purchase the land, a state or local government can purchase it instead. And that’s not all. The bill contains a provision that limits someone from purchasing more than two parcels of public land at a sale. In the original version of the bill, states, local governments, and landowners adjacent to nominated parcels were not limited in what they could purchase. In the new version, only adjacent landowners can purchase more than two parcels in a single sale. 

This means two things. First, the amended bill is still mostly constructed to facilitate transferring as much land to states and local governments as possible. Second, it creates a path for certain landowners to lock up lands with only the requirement that they be used for “housing or to address any infrastructure and amenities to support local needs associated with housing.” While this could certainly mean using lands to build houses, it could mean other things that would largely allow the land to be used to lock people out of what used to be public land. 

I would like to use the same hypothetical as my first blog, which involves the ranch at the center of the corner crossing controversy in south-central Wyoming, which is checkerboarded BLM land on exceptional elk habitat. What I’m about to say may seem like a stretch. But, remember, if bills are drafted with loopholes, people will find them. So, under this amended bill, the owner of that ranch could voluntarily cancel his grazing leases on BLM lands adjoining his lands (remember, lands with grazing leases are exempt from sale). Then, he could immediately nominate those parcels for disposal (so long as they are within 5 miles of a “population center”), and purchase them all. If the town of Elk Mountain, WY, for example, needed additional water to support its growing community, the landowner could enter into a temporary water use agreement with the town and pipe water across the newly acquired land to service the community. This would meet the infrastructure need requirement of the amended bill. Also, reducing checkerboard land patterns is a mandated priority for the Secretary to consider in a land sale. As with the original version of the bill, this means no more checkerboard. No more corner-crossing. No more hunting. Of course, the landowner may just want to build a new house or guesthouse on the parcel for a growing tourism business.

Despite a number of amendments, and statements suggesting this bill is about helping working families find homes—it isn’t. It remains about paving the way for land disposal with no public input.

 

What about Public Input or Public Process? There is None

The following section is entirely pulled from my prior blog, and remains true in the amended version of this bill. Many people do not know this, but there is an existing process to dispose of public lands. Congress passed the Federal Land Planning Management Act (FLPMA) in 1976 to ensure that public lands are managed for multiple uses—grazing, recreation, energy, wildlife and fisheries, clean water, and more. It also established that lands managed by the BLM remain in public ownership unless there’s a strong case for disposal. Here’s how that typically works:

• BLM conducts land use planning, including public meetings and coordination with state and local governments.
• Lands identified for disposal go through a transparent review process, often including environmental analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Just because land is identified as suitable for disposal, does not require that the land must be sold, nor does it provide any timeline for sale. 
• The public gets a chance to weigh in, including local residents, hunters, ranchers, Tribes, and others who use or value these lands. 
• Sales occur at fair market value, and include public notice and a competitive bidding process, unless certain exemptions apply.
• Congressional notification required for sales exceeding 2,500 acres. Congress has 90-days for either body to formally disapprove, or the sale can proceed. 

Of course, this means that the process can be slow because of all of the various boxes that must be checked before a parcel is sold. However, that process exists for good reasons. It ensures that land isn’t sold off just to meet a short-term political or budgetary goal and that local voices are heard before public land changes hands. Remember, public lands can only be sold once. Once sold for development, they are gone from the federal estate forever. 

This bill completely bypasses FLPMA, including the public process for land use planning, the public process for identifying parcels that could be subject to disposal; the requirements for conducting a sale, and the duty to notify Congress. Instead, this bill deems any parcel sold under its provisions as complying with FLPMA. It completely takes the public out of the process, only requiring consultation with the Governor, local government and “each applicable Indian Tribe” prior to selling public lands.

Where Does the Money Go? Not Where It Should

Under current law—specifically the Federal Land Transaction and Facilitation Act (FLTFA)—when BLM lands are sold, the proceeds go into a fund that helps acquire high-priority conservation lands and access easements so we don’t wind up with fragmented landscapes or blocked access. In short, the proceeds ensure that by selling fewer desirable lands, we are able to invest in replacing those acres or improving acres in a way that achieves a net positive for our public lands. But this bill changes those rules. Under the original proposal:

• 90% of the revenue would be sent to the U.S. Treasury
• 5% would go to local governments
• 5% would go to deferred maintenance on public lands in the state where the sale occurred

Under the amended proposal:

• 85% of the revenue would be sent to the U.S. Treasury 
• 5% would go to local governments
• 10% would be used for “hunting, fishing, and recreational amenities” and to address deferred maintenance on public lands—for both things in the state where the sale occurred

It is unclear under the new proposal how much money would be raised through these sales, yet hardly any of that money would be reinvested in the land or the users who rely on it. Further, “hunting, fishing, and recreational amenities” is yet another undefined phrase, in a long line of undefined terms and phrases. Hunters could have a field day imagining what sorts of amenities they want to see on BLM lands. Perhaps a game cart at a trailhead, or duck plucking station. Sky’s the limit. Evidently, this is Sen. Lee’s response to the concerns that hunters, anglers, and recreational users have with selling large amounts of public land. Invest less in the land than if we simply followed existing processes, but provide some “amenities.”  

This remains a raw deal for the people who care for, work on, and recreate on public lands.

Why Hunters and Anglers Should Be Alarmed

Make no mistake: Despite amendments limiting sale to BLM lands within 5 miles of “population centers”, this proposal remains the most aggressive public land disposal effort we’ve seen in decades. It’s still a mandated, fast-tracked land sale that removes public involvement and undermines the long-standing principle that public lands should stay in public hands unless there’s a compelling reason otherwise. It’s also hastily drafted and not well vetted, which creates several areas for potential abuse.

For hunters and anglers, the consequences are enormous:

• Loss of access to upward of a million acres that are open to hunting, fishing, and camping today
• Loss of habitat critical to big game, birds, and fish—especially in winter ranges, migration corridors, and riparian zones
• Loss of economic activity in rural communities that rely on outdoor recreation
• Creates a precedent, making it easier for similar efforts to be pushed in future Congresses

In states like Wyoming, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, and Utah—where public lands make up the majority of the landscape—this bill would fundamentally alter where and how we hunt, fish, and raise our kids to do the same. Remember, most people aren’t hunting in wilderness areas, or deep in the back country. Many people learned to fish, hunt, and shoot on the lands closest to their communities. There are countless tales of deer harvested within 5 miles of their community, and stringers of fish that come from nearby streams and lakes. In a lot of ways, these BLM lands that are close to “population centers” are the recruiting and training ground for the next generation.

What’s Next and What You Can Do to Help

This bill hasn’t passed yet. More changes or other actions could be forthcoming. We know the Parliamentarian struck the first version of this land sale provision. Perhaps lightning will strike twice. We also know that both senators from Montana and Idaho oppose land sales in the reconciliation bill. Perhaps they can put a stop to this nonsense. But, this is all happening fast. Senate leadership wants to vote on the reconciliation bill by the end of this week. So, everyone needs to continue speaking up. 

Here’s how you can help:

• Call your Senators and tell them to oppose any effort to sell off our public lands. Come with facts, not hyperbole. Remind them that the overwhelming majority of voters in their state, regardless of political party, oppose selling public lands—yes, even in Utah.
• Call governors, county commissioners, state legislators and other elected officials that may have the ear of your elected senators. They need to hear from their constituents and advocate on their behalf. 
• Spread the word to your hunting and angling circles, and beyond. Many people haven’t heard about this proposal yet. 
• Social media is a powerful tool to spread the word. Use it.
• Support conservation organizations that are actively working to defend public land and access. They are working around the clock on your behalf to fight back on this sell-off. 
• Call your Representatives because if the Senate passes a bill with land sales in it, the House gets another shot at removing it. Our most ardent defenders like Representatives Zinke (R-MT), Downing (R-MT), and Simpson (R-ID) need our continued support, and help finding additional allies. 

We’ve defended public lands before—and we can do it again. But it takes all of us showing up and speaking out.

Contact Your Officials

 

The Bottom Line

The conclusion from my initial blog remains unchanged. This Congressional proposal is a direct threat to our shared legacy of public lands. If passed, it would constitute the largest public land sell-off in modern U.S. history, and would do little—if anything—to meaningfully address affordable housing.

For those of us who hunt, fish, and rely on open spaces, this fight isn’t about politics. In fact, it has united people from across the political spectrum to preserve what makes the West special—for our generation and the next. Once again:

Don’t let them sell what belongs to all Americans. Keep public lands in public hands.