Land is of foremost concern to us here at progress and poverty, and today we bring you some news about recent developments to land held in trust by the United States government on behalf of its citizens.
As our government attempts to reconcile the budget, there is one development on federal land that has gone relatively under-reported. In a late-night amendment last week, the House Natural Resources Committee recently approved a measure that would mandate the sale of hundreds of thousands of acres of public lands in Utah and Nevada.
The Midnight Amendment and What It Means
Representatives Mark Amodei (R-NV) and Celeste Maloy (R-UT) introduced their 33-page amendment at the end of a 13-hour budget hearing, with conservation groups reporting it aims to "put somewhere north of half-a-million acres of public land on the auction block". The amendment requires the Interior Department to sell off an unspecified amount of public land in Nevada and approximately 11,000 acres of public land in Utah. The full-text can be found here.
This amendment fundamentally alters how public land sales normally work. While the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has long maintained lists of lands potentially suitable for disposal under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, those sales aren't mandatory. The new amendment changes this by mandating sales and setting expedited timelines that reduce opportunities for public input and proper environmental assessment.
Perhaps most troubling for conservation advocates is that the amendment redirects proceeds from land sales. Currently, revenue from public land sales goes into the Federal Land Disposal Account to fund conservation priorities and improve public land access. Under the new amendment, that money would instead flow to the general Treasury, effectively turning public lands into a short-term revenue source with no guaranteed reinvestment in conservation.
Montana Republican Leads Opposition to Public Land Sales
The amendment was pushed through by Republicans, but not all Republicans are on board with this plan. Montana Representative Ryan Zinke, who served as Interior Secretary under President Trump, has emerged as a vocal opponent of including land sales in the budget reconciliation package.
"I have told leadership before, I have told leadership since, that... I strongly don't believe [land sales] should be in the reconciliation bill," Zinke stated during a recent press conference. His opposition is significant and could potentially derail the GOP's plans to approve their budget package through the reconciliation process, which requires near-unanimous party support.
The Bipartisan Public Lands Caucus
In response to threats facing public lands, Representatives Zinke and Gabe Vasquez (D-NM) recently launched the bipartisan Public Lands Caucus. The group includes Representatives Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.) and Mike Simpson (R-Idaho) as co-chairs.
According to Vasquez, the caucus will "show a unified and bipartisan front to push back on any potential sell off or transfer of public lands to the states or private entities as a pay-for to offset tax cuts".
Beyond forming the caucus, Representatives Zinke and Vasquez have also introduced the Public Lands in Public Hands Act. This legislation would require additional Congressional oversight for significant public land sales, specifically mandating that Congress approve the sale or transfer of publicly accessible parcels larger than 300 acres and water-adjacent parcels larger than five acres, as reported by the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership.
The bill, which was first introduced in the previous Congress and has now been reintroduced, aims to ensure that key recreation areas aren't lost without careful consideration by elected officials who can be held accountable by voters.
The federal government owns an enormous amount of land and likewise has an enormous duty to ensure that this land is put to the best possible use for its citizens. Sometimes that means opening it up for development, and other times that means conservation; there is a time and season for every purpose. The key is to ensure that whatever the government does with them is done judiciously, not rashly, and always in the best interest of its true owners – namely, the American people.
If we lived in a perfect world, they would be putting the land up for rent instead of for sale, with the rent price being some proportion of the market price + some premium based on how much people care about conservation of that specific piece of land vs the utility from the government having more money to spend.
I don't believe the Federal government had any right to the land to begin with. Doesn't it claim some ridiculous percentage of the American West (especially in Nevada)? Doesn't it rent out some of it to corporations for pennies on the dollar?
I'm all for the Geoist cause, but not at the Federal level. I'm not a nationalist. I think decentralized power is an integral part of the American experiment.