May 11, 2025:
BILLINGS, Mont. (AP) — Congressional Republicans say their plan to sell or transfer 460,000 acres of public land will generate revenue and offer space to build houses in Western cities. Without clear details on how it will work, skeptics worry it could be a giveaway for developers and mining companies. For some rapidly growing western cities, owning the adjacent federal land would be a boon. Conservationists, on the other hand, fear the loss of public lands and environmental destruction. And while housing advocates are hopeful at the opportunity, they remain wary that enough affordable housing will be built. The legislation passed by the House Natural Resources Committee last week, part of the Republicans’ sweeping tax cut package.
Story Body
BILLINGS, Mont. (AP) — Congressional Republicans say their plan to sell potentially hundreds of thousands of acres of federal land will generate revenue and ease growth pressures in booming Western cities. Yet without clear details on how it will work, skeptics worry it could be a giveaway for developers and mining companies and do little to ease the region’s housing crisis.
Legislation passed by the House Natural Resources Committee last week includes about 460,000 acres (186,155 hectares) in Nevada and Utah to be sold or transferred to local governments or private entities.
The provision is part of a sweeping tax cut package and mirrors the Trump administration’s view of most public lands as an asset to be used, not set aside for preservation.
Who should control such sites has long been a burning source of disagreement in the West, where about half the acreage is under federal control and cities that sprawl across open landscapes face rising demand for housing, water and other necessities.
The GOP plan is rekindling the fight and generating strong blowback from Democrats and conservationists. They see the measure as a precedent-setting move that would open the door to sales in other states.
“We have grave concerns that this is the camel’s nose under the tent,” said Steve Bloch with the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance. “If it can happen in Utah, if it can happen in Nevada, it’s not going to stay here. It’s going to spread.”
Some Republicans also signaled opposition, setting up a political clash as the budget process moves forward.
‘Good news’ for fast-growing Nevada city
The majority of land in the House provision is in Nevada, including the counties that encompass Reno, Las Vegas and the fast-growing city of Fernley, according to maps released by the measure’s sponsors, Republican Reps. Mark Amodei of Nevada and Celeste Maloy of Utah.
Fernley City Manager Benjamin Marchant said the opportunity to buy 12,000 acres (4850 hectares) of federal land at the edge of the community was “good news.” The city size tripled since its incorporation in 2001 and is expected to double again over the next decade, he said.
There is hope to emerge as a technology hub, but Fernley needs space to grow.
“We can’t even talk about projects when it’s federal land,” Marchant said. “We can’t sell what we don’t own, and this is the first step.”
Other parcels to be sold are farther from developed areas. They include sites bordering Zion National Park and tribal lands such as the Paiute Indian Tribe reservation in Utah and the Pyramid Lake Paiute reservation in Nevada.
“That means the tribe can’t grow,” said Mathilda Miller with Native Voters Alliance Nevada, an advocacy group for the state’s tribes that opposes the sales. “They can’t reclaim the land that was stolen from their tribe, and it brings development right up to their doorstep.”
Roughly 100,000 acres (40,500 hectares) in western Nevada’s rural Pershing County could be sold to private companies with mining claims or mining infrastructure, according to Amodei’s office. The legislation also requires federal parcels in that area to be exchanged for an equal amount of nonfederal land.
Landlocked by federal holdings
Many of the communities near sale locations share a common theme: Their expansion is hemmed in by federal property, which makes up 80% of the land in Nevada and 63% in Utah. Some states in the Midwest and East have 1% or less federal land by comparison.
Public parcels often are interspersed with private holdings in a “checkerboard” fashion that further complicates development efforts.
Housing advocates caution that federal land is not universally suitable for affordable housing. Generally, the farther away the land is from cities and towns the more infrastructure is required — roads, sewage, public transportation.
“It’s a costly way to go because of the infrastructure needs, because of the time it will take,” said Vicki Been of the Furman Center for Real Estate and Urban Policy at New York University. “I’m not saying that there’s no place on federal lands that would make sense, but one has to really look carefully.”
The Republican proposal seeks to identify suitable lands in coordination with local municipalities. That has left some concerned there aren’t enough assurances that the land, or enough land, will end up going to affordable housing.
“The devils in the details,” said Tara Rollins, executive director of the Utah Housing Coalition. “It could just be a land grab. There just needs to be a lot of checks and balances.”
A failed lawsuit to wrest control
The wholesale transfer of federal lands to local or private entities is something many western conservatives have long sought. Republican officials in Utah last year filed a lawsuit last seeking to take over huge swathes of federal land in the state, but they were rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court. Twelve other states backed Utah’s bid.
There also are strong voices within the GOP against public land sales, notably Montana lawmakers Rep. Ryan Zinke, who was interior secretary in Trump’s first term, and Sen. Steve Daines. Colorado Rep. Jeff Hurd was the lone Republican on the Natural Resources Committee to vote against the lands provision.
The legislation would sell about 10,000 acres (4050 hectares) of land in two Utah counties. Maloy said it avoids areas that should be conserved and would help ease demand for housing and water, by creating space to build new homes and expand reservoir capacity.
Smaller land sales are a common practice for the Interior Department’s Bureau of Land Management.
“Not all federal lands have the same value,” Maloy said. “In both Democratic and Republican administrations, for decades, we’ve been disposing of appropriate lands in a manner that’s consistent with what I propose to do here.”
May 7, 2025:
WASHINGTON (AP) — House Republicans have added a provision to their sweeping tax cut package that would authorize the sale of thousands of acres of public lands in Nevada and Utah. The proposal prompted outrage from Democrats and environmental groups who called the plan a betrayal that could lead to increased drilling, mining and logging in the West. The plan would sell thousands of acres of public lands in the two states, and calls for some of the parcels to be considered for affordable housing projects. It’s now part of Trump’s big bill of tax breaks and spending cuts that is moving through Congress.
Story Body
WASHINGTON (AP) — House Republicans have added a provision to their sweeping tax cut package that would authorize the sale of thousands of acres of public lands in Nevada and Utah, prompting outrage from Democrats and environmental groups who called the plan a betrayal that could lead to increased drilling, mining and logging in the West.
Republicans on the House Natural Resources Committee adopted the land sales proposal early Wednesday morning (May 7, 2025). The initial draft had not included it amid bipartisan opposition.
The land sale provision put forward by Republican Reps. Mark Amodei of Nevada and Celeste Maloy of Utah would sell thousands of acres of public lands in the two states, and calls for some of the parcels to be considered for affordable housing projects.
“The sales from these small parcels of land will generate significant federal revenue, and have broad local support. It’s a tailored, parochial budgetary measure,” said House Natural Resources Committee spokesperson John Seibels.
Colorado Republican Rep. Jeff Hurd voted against the provision and Rep. Joe Neguse , D-Colo., called it “deeply irresponsible.”
“Public lands shouldn’t have a price tag on them. But (President) Donald Trump and his allies in Congress are working like mad to hand over our public lands to billionaires and corporate polluters to drill, mine and log with the bare minimum oversight or accountability,” said Athan Manuel, director of Sierra Club’s Lands Protection Program. The lands potentially for sale “belong to all Americans. They shouldn’t be given away to pad corporate bottom lines,” Manuel said.
Seibels said the land sales provision resulted from a “community-driven effort” by the impacted counties.
The Nevada parcels are in Lyon County, Washoe County, Pershing County and Clark County, which includes Las Vegas. The Utah parcels are in the southwestern portion of the state, including around the city of St. George and near Zion National Park.
The sales provision advanced as the Natural Resources committee voted 26-17 to allow increased leasing of public lands for drilling, mining and logging while clearing the path for more development by speeding up government approvals. Royalty rates paid by companies to extract oil, gas and coal would be cut, reversing former Democratic President Joe Biden’s attempts to curb fossil fuels to help address climate change.
The measure is part of Trump’s big bill of tax breaks, spending cuts and beefed-up funding to halt migrants. House Speaker Mike Johnson has set a goal of passing the package out of his chamber by Memorial Day. All told, 11 different House committees are crafting portions of the bill.
Montana Rep. Ryan Zinke, a Republican and former Interior secretary in the first Trump administration, had said before the vote that he was drawing a “red line” on public land sales.
“It’s a no now. It will be a no later. It will be a no forever,” said Zinke, whose state includes large parcels of federally owned lands.
About 1 million square miles is under federal control. Most of that land is in Alaska and Western states. That includes 63% in Utah and 80% in Nevada.
Zinke and Rep. Gabe Vasquez, D-New Mexico, are leading a new bipartisan Public Lands Caucus intended to protect and expand access to America’s public lands. The caucus launched with a Wednesday news conference hours after the resources panel vote.
Asked about the land sale provisions, Zinke said he understood frustrations over restrictions on logging and mineral extraction. But he suggested public lands should remain under government management.
“I prefer the management scheme and I give as an example a hotel. If you don’t like the management of a hotel, don’t sell the hotel; change the management,” he said.
Oil and gas royalty rates would drop from 16.7% on public lands and 18.75% offshore to a uniform 12.5% under the committee-passed bill, which still faces a vote in the full House and Senate once it is incorporated into the final legislative package. Royalties for coal would drop from 12.5% to 7%.
The measure calls for four oil and gas lease sales in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge over the next decade. It also seeks to boost the ailing coal industry with a mandate to make available for leasing 6,250 square miles of public lands — an area greater in size than Connecticut.
Republican supporters say the lost revenue would be offset by increased development. It’s uncertain if companies would have an appetite for leases given the industry’s precipitous decline in recent years as utilities switched to cleaner burning fuels and renewable energy.
Interior Secretary Doug Burgum and Housing and Urban Development Secretary Scott Turner in March proposed using “underutilized” federal land for affordable housing. Turner said some 7 million homes are needed. Officials under Biden also sought to use public lands for affordable housing, although on a smaller scale.
The agencies have not yet released more details of the plan.
Comments