What To Know About the Senate’s Public Lands Sell-Off
By: Drew McConville (Center for American Progress)
The TEA Party always has been all ass and no hat. These TEA Party mental midgets will end selling public land to China. The United States isn't going to mine anything or manufacture anything because it costs too much and Americans won't do the work. Even the TEA Party tells us that.
Doesn't the TEA Party realize they make the Center for American Progress look smart?
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
In recent days, Senate Republicans have released the text for a megabill, dubbed the “One Beautiful Bill Act,” that is being rushed to President Donald Trump’s desk. In addition to making drastic cuts to Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and clean energy, the bill includes unprecedented language that would require selling off millions of acres of public lands to help pay for tax cuts for billionaires.
Notably, the House of Representatives rejected a public lands sell-off proposal in their version of this bill after it provoked strong and notable opposition from Rep. Ryan Zinke (R-MT) and other Republican officials. But bill text released by the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on June 11—as well as amended bill text first published by Politico’s E&E Daily on June 17—contains sell-off language that’s substantially more expansive.
Here are six things to know about the public lands sell-off language included in the Senate bill.
1. Hundreds of millions of acres of public lands are eligible for sale, 2 to 3 million of which must be sold in five years
News coverage has understandably focused on the bill’s mandate to sell 2 to 3 million acres of national forests and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands within five years. Less well understood is the fact that the bill makes more than 250 million acres of public lands eligible for those sales, including via nomination by any interested party.
2. Prime recreation, wildlife, historic, and cultural lands could be sold off
When releasing the bill text, the Senate committee emphasized categories of land the bill exempts from sale, including “just for show” categories, such as national parks, that are not even managed by the U.S. Forest Service or BLM. But well-loved recreation spots, popular areas for hunting and fishing, prime wildlife habitat, and even sacred or historic sites could be privatized if the bill becomes law. That includes lands currently managed as conservation priorities, such as backcountry conservation areas, areas of critical environmental concern, and roadless areas. Worse yet, the bill wipes out any requirement that the government weigh the potential benefits of a land sale against lost recreation, clean water, wildlife, cultural resources, and other values.
3. Zero public input—and minimal public notice—is required
The bill requires some consultation with local government, governors, and Tribes but no opportunity for public input. Currently, identifying public lands for potential disposal involves a transparent, public process, but those requirements would be erased by the bill. While lands directly identified for sale by land management agencies are supposed to be publicized, nominations by private interests are not covered by that requirement. Agencies are not even required by the bill to disclose when public lands have actually been sold or to whom; instead, the public may only find out when they show up and see “no trespassing” signs.
4. Major loopholes allow expansive and exclusive development
Nominally aimed at providing land for housing, the bill allows the Trump administration to define what land uses qualify under the bill’s vague restrictions while failing to provide a clear mechanism for enforcement. Even lands sold for housing would carry no requirements for affordability or density, and there would be no significant guardrails to prevent valued public lands from being sold for trophy homes, pricey vacation spots, exclusive golf communities, or other developments.
5. Massive public lands sell-off is no solution to housing affordability
While targeted transfers or sales of some federal lands can make sense with appropriate safeguards, the vast majority of public lands are nowhere near the existing infrastructure needed to build housing affordably and avoid clear resource conflicts. Rather than targeting the root causes of America’s housing affordability crisis, the Senate is advancing a reckless anti-public lands proposal masquerading as a housing solution.
6. An unabashed advocate for selling off U.S. public lands wrote the bill text
The chairman of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT), is a longtime advocate for selling off or transferring national public lands. Lee has questioned the constitutional basis for national public lands and boasted of “fighting” to make the federal government fulfill its “promise” of selling off federal lands throughout the West. In addition, he vocally supported Utah’s 2024 lawsuit—brought directly to the U.S. Supreme Court—that would have forced the federal government to dispose of vast amounts of public lands, including 18 million acres in Utah, with implications for hundreds of millions of acres nationwide. Sen. Lee has even suggested that federal land ownership in Utah could “justify war.”
Conclusion
To be clear, this bill is coming to the Senate floor soon, but it has not passed yet. Clear opposition from House members resulted in the removal of a less extensive, but still damaging, sell-off proposal in the House version of the One Beautiful Bill Act. While it should be no surprise that Sen. Lee would try to include extreme land sell-off in this bill given his track record, it is more surprising that Senate Republican leadership and Lee’s colleagues are, so far, going along with it.
The author would like to thank Jamie Friedman, Steve Bonitatibus, Audrey Juarez, Nicole Gentile, and other Center for American Progress colleagues for their contributions to this column.
Tags
Who is online
294 visitors
Haven't these TEA Party fart heads heard of leases? Only a damned idiot would sell what they could rent. And the TEA Party claims they're fiscally responsible? Even an environmentalist wouldn't be so stupid as to give up an eco-tourism revenue stream.
This is something im watching because of the state i live in, a lot of it is owned or administered by the federal government , so i am weighing the pros and cons.
Bet many dont know that the feds are not exempt from paying state property taxes.
my state and the feds negotiate about every 10 years what rate the feds pay, sometimes it works in the feds favor , sometimes it works in the states favor, it is called PILT, payment in leu of taxes , what this doses is gives both the state and the feds a fixed amount coming in or going out . and not subject to fluctuations of property value increasing property taxes . in my state property taxes are set at the county , not state level, and supply and demand have a very definite affect . and with 23 counties the feds would have to pay 23 different property tax rates without the state stepping in and negotiating PILT. it simplifies things for all involved and it also simplifies things like if the land is nothing but sage brush , or has a government building on it that could be taxed at valuation .
The county i live in , i pay nothing in taxes on the land itself , what i do pay taxes on , are the buildings and what they are valued at depending how they are classified and zoned be it residential or commercial . just for reference im residential with no rental income currently.
in another county over i could be paying for the land and buildings , in yet another , just on the land no matter whats built on it .
Ok now for pros and cons , a pro would be the transfer from fed to private increasing payment into state and county coffers , being able to charge what the actual value is but that is subject to fluctuation .
Big con in my view is such a transfer , make the property subject to private property laws and access control with all the issues and problems that entails .