Proposed sale of Utah public land pulled from Congress' budget bill
Utah Republican Rep. Celeste Maloy tries to reason with an unruly crowd during a town hall event at the University of Utah on Thursday, March 20, 2025. (Kyle Dunphey/Utah News Dispatch)
Utah Rep. Celeste Maloy's proposal to sell off nearly 11,500 acres of public land in southwestern Utah was shot down this week after receiving bipartisan pushback in Congress.
The proposal, which identified parcels owned by the Bureau of Land Management to sell to Washington and Beaver counties, the Washington County Water Conservancy District and the city of St. George, was included by Maloy as part of Congress' budget package.
But on Wednesday evening, Montana Republican Rep. Ryan Zinke, who previously said selling public lands is a line he would not cross, rallied support from a bipartisan group of lawmakers to strip Maloy's proposal from the budget bill during a House Rules Committee meeting.
Maloy's office did not immediately respond to a request for comment Thursday morning.
Officials eye airport expansion, reservoirs and new roads under Maloy's proposed public land sale
Maloy, in an earlier statement, said the land would help the southwest corner of the state expand water, transportation and housing infrastructure, as the region deals with rapid population growth. St. George was eying an airport expansion; the Washington County Water Conservancy District had plans to build a new reservoir; Washington County was looking to widen some existing roads.
In a statement, St. George city leaders thanked Maloy for working on the amendment, and they plan to have more talks with lawmakers on the issue.
'We were disappointed that some groups falsely presented this amendment as if it were a land grab,' city leaders said. 'In actuality, the amendment was intended to protect existing critical infrastructure or future critical infrastructure that would be built on already disturbed public lands. Only approximately nine acres would have been used for attainable housing, at a spot adjacent to a future cemetery and an existing residential subdivision.'
The Washington County Water Conservancy District issued a similar statement, telling Utah News Dispatch it respects Congress' decision to remove Maloy's amendment.
'We appreciate Senator Maloy's efforts to facilitate the availability of federal lands for exchange in a manner that would benefit the water district,' the statement reads. 'The water district remains committed to securing the necessary federal lands in Washington County for critical water infrastructure projects through established, traditional processes.'
Maloy's amendment identified a total of 70 parcels to be sold in Utah. The proposal had a far greater impact on Nevada, with Republican Rep. Mark Amodei earmarking nearly 450,000 acres for disposal in his state.
The proposal received broad criticism from environmental groups and public land advocates, who said the bill lacked language mandating what the land would be used for. They argued there was nothing stopping the governments from purchasing the land, then using it for something other than the originally stated purpose. And some of the land abutted rivers and popular recreation areas, including Zion National Park, prompting concerns over access and environmental harm.
The proposal also had its critics in Congress, on both sides of the isle, including Zinke, who called it his 'San Juan Hill,' referring to a famous Spanish-American War battle.
'I do not support the widespread sale or transfer of public lands. Once the land is sold, we will never get it back. God isn't creating more land,' Zinke said in a news release on Wednesday.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Environmental groups celebrated the decision, issuing a flurry of statements and reactions.
Travis Hammill, the Washington D.C. director for the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, said Maloy is the 'latest in a long list of politicians with the bad idea to try and sell off public lands.'
'The through line of those failed efforts is this: love of public lands transcends geography and political party. Americans don't want to see these lands sold off and time and time again have risen up to make their voices heard,' Hammill said.
Kyle Roerink executive director of the Great Basin Water Network, said Zinke's move to tank the disposal 'sends a strong message to lawmakers of all stripes: We can never break the public trust and the Colorado River for billionaire tax breaks.'
Others noted the bipartisan opposition to the amendment, including Patrick Donnelly, Great Basin director for the Center for Biological Diversity, who called the attempt 'appalling' and 'Gilded Age-level stuff.'
'Republicans' public lands fire sale was so greedy even their own caucus wouldn't support it,' Donnelly said in an emailed statement. 'I hope people remember it the next time Republicans try to pretend they care about public lands.'
According to the amendment's text, about 70 parcels were identified to be sold off to four entities, at market value. Consider:
U.S. House Republicans push through massive tax and spending bill slashing Medicaid
Washington County would have been allowed to purchase 23 parcels covering about 6,492 acres.
The Washington County Water Conservancy District would have been allowed to purchase 22 parcels amounting to about 4,375 acres.
St. George would have been allowed to purchase 23 parcels amounting to about 520 acres.
Beaver County would have been allowed to purchase three parcels amounting to roughly 62 acres.
The amendment was a small part of what President Donald Trump has called the 'big, beautiful bill' that has been in the works for months. The bill extends Trump's 2017 tax law, cuts steps out of the energy permitting process, increases defense and border security spending, and makes substantial changes to Medicaid.
The bill cleared the House early Thursday and is headed to the Senate.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
American Press
44 minutes ago
- American Press
Ethical dilemma for Landry: Governor faces charges while his lawyer seeks changes for future claims
Louisiana's Republican Gov. Jeff Landry. (Associated Press Archives) Louisiana is poised to adopt new measures that watchdogs warn raise barriers to holding public officials accountable via the state's ethics board. The legislation was drafted by the personal attorney of Republican Gov. Jeff Landry, who faces charges brought by the board for violating state ethics laws. Proponents say the measures give those accused of ethics violations more opportunities to respond to allegations, increases transparency and limits abuses of a process they claim is often unjust. But watchdog groups — and the Board of Ethics — warn the changes will undermine the board's ability to hold public officials accountable. While the changes would not apply to Landry's current charges, the legislation further bolsters the governor's power over a state board largely made up of his own appointees. Having overwhelmingly passed in the House and Senate this week — only three lawmakers voted against it — the bill awaits Landry's signature. Republican Rep. Gerald 'Beau' Beaullieu, who sponsored the bill, said it was brought forth after officials complained that the board's investigation process was 'more like being investigated by the Gestapo.' Landry's office declined to comment. Another bill would share the names of complainants with officials they are accusing of wrongdoing, as well as limit the board's ability to launch investigations. Governor's lawyer behind legislation Landry's private attorney, Stephen Gelé, drafted the legislation, which the governor supports. Gelé is defending Landry against ethics charges brought in 2023 for undisclosed free plane rides to Hawaii when he served as the state's attorney general. Gelé said negotiations are progressing to 'amicably resolve the charges.' Last year, Gelé warned lawmakers that the ethics board's investigatory powers are 'dangerous, unwarranted, and threaten well-established fundamental constitutional rights' and he has sought to rein them in with new legislation. The bill's supporters say it gives the board more discretion about whether to pursue investigations and bring charges, cuts down on waste of taxpayer dollars and strengthens due process rights for the accused. Yet these changes are raising red flags. In a letter to lawmakers, the Board of Ethics warned that the bill's requirement to share copies of all subpoenas with officials under investigation allows them to 'influence a witness's documents or responses.' Critics say the bill undercuts the board's authority by granting local courts the power to quash investigations, gives officials opportunities to run out the clock on the board's one-year timeline to bring charges and prevents the board from investigating violations that were disclosed by public officials seeking the board's advisory opinion. The bill also requires a two-thirds board vote to approve an investigation into a sworn complaint and another two-thirds vote on whether to file charges. Current policy requires only majority votes. Barry Erwin, president of the Council for a Better Louisiana, a nonpartisan government accountability group, said the bill's two-thirds vote requirements constitute a 'high bar to overcome' for a board of political appointees. 'I just think in real life, in very political situations, it's hard for some of these board members to act with the independence in the system we had before,' Erwin said. A bill that will reduce complaints The other bill under consideration — which Gelé said he did not craft and Landry has not publicly supported — would require anyone bringing an ethics complaint to disclose their name and file the complaint in person at the ethics board offices in Baton Rouge. The bill passed in the House with only seven lawmakers opposed and is pending final passage in the Senate. In a legislative committee hearing, David Bordelon, general counsel for the ethics board, warned that the bill would enable officials 'to intimidate a witness or potentially alter information that's requested.' Bordelon said the measure would 'drastically reduce the number of complaints.' The legislation's sponsor, Republican Rep. Kellee Hennessey Dickerson, said her bill is part of a fight for 'truth' and 'justice.' 'For those of us who have been through it, it helps develop peace of mind, knowing who your accuser is, especially when you are spending thousands upon thousands of dollars to try and clear your good name,' said Dickerson, who was fined $1,500 for an ethics violation in 2023. She argued people frequently file complaints to harass their political opponents. Bordelon countered that the board dispassionately evaluates complaints and provides the accused with the opportunity to defend themselves if charges are brought. The bill also prevents the ethics board from launching investigations based on non-governmental sources such as media reports. Governor dominates state ethics board Following legislation passed last year, the governor directly appoints nine of the board's 15 members, with the Legislature appointing the rest. Officials with the legislative and executive branches now have more control over those who may be tasked with investigating them, watchdogs note. 'It's gone from a process that was as much arm's length away from politics as we could make it, and we had it that way for many years, to a process now that is very much more political than we've ever seen it,' Erwin said. 'It's going to be very difficult for the board to act in a way that guarantees that kind of oversight we want to have.'
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Democrats fend off GOP in San Antonio mayor runoff election
Former Biden administration official Gina Ortiz Jones has won a runoff election in San Antonio's mayoral race, fending off a Republican opponent that the GOP hoped could pull off an upset, Decision Desk HQ projects. Jones defeated former Texas Secretary of State Rolando Pablos in an officially nonpartisan election that still in practice played out as a partisan election as Jones is a registered Democrat and Pablos is a registered Republican. The two candidates had advanced from the first round of the election in which many competed on the same ballot. Since no candidate received a majority of the vote in that round last month, the top two performing candidates advanced to face each other in the runoff. The city of San Antonio hasn't elected a Republican mayor in more than 20 years, and the past two elections for outgoing Mayor Ron Nirenberg, who has served since 2017, haven't been close. Nirenberg is term-limited from running again after serving four two-year terms. But Republicans had hope that they could notch a win with Pablos, who served as secretary of state for about two years under Gov. Greg Abbott (R). The GOP made some gains in the city in November after three presidential races in a row in which the city swung toward Democrats, though former Vice President Harris still comfortably won the area. Pablos also had a significant fundraising advantage, outraising Jones by a margin of 1.5 to 1, while outside spending from PACs contributed more than triple the amount in favor of Pablos compared to Jones, according to DDHQ. That includes a PAC with ties to Abbott and San Antonio's police union, The Texas Tribune reported. Pablos also picked up an endorsement from the editorial board of the San Antonio Express-News, uncommon for a Republican. But Jones was still the favorite in the Democratic-leaning city, even despite the gains that President Trump and the GOP has made with Hispanic voters recently. She finished first in the first round of voting in May, receiving 27.2 percent of the vote in a crowded field to Pablos's 16.6 percent. Jones previously served as undersecretary of the Air Force during the Biden administration from 2021 to 2023. Before that, she was the Democratic nominee for the House seat in Texas's 23rd Congressional District in 2018 and 2020, losing narrowly both times. She will be San Antonio's third female mayor and the first person to serve a four-year term after voters in the city approved a measure in November extending the mayor's term from two years to four. She will also be the city's first openly lesbian mayor.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Trump Issues Jaw-Dropping Authoritarian Threat to Elon Musk
As President Donald Trump works through the seven stages of grief that come with a big break-up, he's embracing anger—and directing at it his former ally Elon Musk. After two days of snapping at each other online, a historic public feud that pitted two of the world's most powerful men against each other, Trump decided to turn up the heat Saturday. Speaking with NBC News' Kristen Welker, he promised 'serious consequences' if Tesla billionaire Musk were to fund Democratic candidates in attempts to sabotage Trump's 'big, beautiful bill.' The threat came after Musk begged Congress to vote down the legislation, which is estimated to add some $2.4 trillion to the federal deficit, calling it 'ugly' and 'pork filled.' 'If he does, he'll have to pay the consequences for that,' Trump told NBC News in a phone interview. 'He'll have to pay very serious consequences.' Musk, the world's richest man, claimed Thursday that he was the reason for Trump's re-election, having donating $288 million to his presidential campaign. He called the president out for 'such ingratitude.' The intense clash escalated so much that the former 'First Buddy' dropped a bombshell alleging that Trump 'is in the Epstein files.' He has since scrubbed the post from his page, although it originally told readers: 'Mark this post for the future. The truth will come out.' (Trump dismissed the allegations about his connection with the now-deceased Jeffrey Epstein. 'That's called 'old news,' that's been old news, that has been talked about for years,' Trump said on Saturday. 'Even Epstein's lawyer said I had nothing to do with it. It's old news.') But while Musk's move to delete the post could be a sign that he'd consider backing off, Trump has decided instead to launch a new assault. Trump told NBC that he had no desire to repair his relationship with Musk. 'I'm too busy doing other things,' he said, adding, 'I have no intention of speaking to him.' And when asked if the four-month bromance was completely over, a sullen Trump said: 'I would assume so, yeah.' Trump had previously suggested that his once-close adviser had developed 'Trump Derangement Syndrome.' 'I'm very disappointed with Elon. I've helped him a lot,' he said at the time. 'He knew the inner workings of the bill better than anybody sitting here. He had no problem with it.' On Saturday Trump told NBC that Musk was 'disrespectful to the office of the President.' 'I think it's a very bad thing, because he's very disrespectful. You could not disrespect the office of the President,' he added. Trump's ominous suggestion of 'serious consequences' isn't the first threat he's launched against Musk. On Thursday he warned that he was contemplating cutting the SpaceX CEO's government contracts. 'The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon's Governmental Subsidies and Contracts,' he posted on Truth Social. 'I was always surprised that Biden didn't do it!' On Saturday, he said that the move was still on the table: 'I'd be allowed to do that,' he said, 'but I have, I haven't given it any thought.' Trump also suggested that it was Musk who was reeling from the toxic breakup. 'I think Elon, really, I think it's a shame that he's so depressed and so heartbroken,' he said.
