Utah Sen. Mike Lee brings back proposal to sell public land in Western states
Utah Sen. Mike Lee is bringing back a proposal that would allow the federal government to sell off several million acres of public land in Utah and other Western states.
Lee says it will open up 'underused' federal land for housing and help communities manage growth — opponents, including a number of Democrats in Congress and environmental groups, say it's an attempt to pay for tax cuts and warn it will jeopardize access to public lands.
Rep. Cliff Bentz, Oregon's only Republican member of Congress, defended giving away public land during a wide-ranging recent interview with the Oregon Capital Chronicle.
'There are really good reasons many times in the West, where there are literally tens and hundreds of millions of acres of public land, to transfer a small portion of it so that we can actually grow and perhaps address, oh I don't know, housing issues? Since everybody knows that we are desperately short of housing,' he said. 'Why in the world would we try to preserve land for hunting when people are living under a tree someplace?'
Introduced Wednesday evening, Lee's amendment to congressional Republicans' budget bill, nicknamed the 'big, beautiful bill,' renews an effort initially spearheaded by Rep. Celeste Maloy, R-Utah, and Mark Amodei, R-Nevada, that sought to dispose of 11,500 acres of Bureau of Land Management land in southwestern Utah and some 450,000 acres of federal land in Nevada.
But Lee's proposal is much broader — rather than earmark specific parcels of land for disposal like Maloy and Amodei's amendment, Lee wants to require the U.S. Department of the Interior and U.S. Department of Agriculture to sell off a percentage of land managed by the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management.
According to the amendment, both agencies would be required to dispose of between 0.5% to 0.75% of land they manage, which amounts to about 2.2 million to 3.3 million acres. State and local governments would be allowed to nominate parcels of land, and would be granted priority to purchase.
Eleven states would be eligible — Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington and Wyoming. Notably, Montana is exempt, and Montana Republican Rep. Ryan Zinke was instrumental in sinking Maloy and Amodei's original proposal, stating that selling public lands is a line he would not cross.
Though the scope is much bigger, Lee's reasoning behind the proposal is the same as Maloy and Amodei's — identify parcels of federal land near high-growth areas, and sell them at market value to local governments to use for housing, water infrastructure, roads and other development.
The amendment prohibits the sale of land that's already designated, like national parks, national monuments, wilderness areas or national recreation areas. Land that has an existing right, like a mining claim, grazing permit, mineral lease or right of way is also off limits.
If it passes, the secretaries of the departments of interior and agriculture would have to prioritize nominating land that's next to already developed areas, has access to existing infrastructure or is 'suitable for residential housing.' The amendment also directs the secretaries to nominate land that's isolated and 'inefficient to manage,' and to reduce the checkerboard land pattern, the result of railroad grants in the 1800s that left small plots of private land scattered within swaths of federal land and vice-versa.
'We're opening underused federal land to expand housing, support local development and get Washington, D.C. out of the way for communities that are just trying to grow,' Lee said in a video address. 'We're talking about isolated parcels that are difficult to manage, that are better suited for housing and infrastructure. To our hunters, anglers and sportsmen, you will not lose access to the lands you love. Washington has proven time and again it can't manage this land. This bill puts it in better hands.'
But that reasoning didn't fly for a number of environmental groups, including the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, which called Lee's proposal an attempt 'to pay for tax cuts for the ultra-wealthy.'
'Senator Lee's never-ending attacks on public lands continue. His hostility stands in stark contrast with Americans' deep and abiding love of public lands. Senator Lee's plan puts Utah's redrock country in the crosshairs of unchecked development,' said Travis Hammill, Washington, D.C. director for the alliance. 'In Utah and the West, public lands are the envy of the country — but Senator Lee is willing to sacrifice the places where people recreate, where they hunt and fish, and where they make a living.'
The Center for Western Priorities, a public lands advocacy group, called Lee's amendment 'a shameless ploy to sell off pristine public lands for trophy homes and gated communities that will do nothing to address the affordable housing shortage in the West'; the National Wildlife Federation dubbed it a 'fire sale' that is 'orders of magnitude worse' than Maloy's proposal; The Wilderness Society said it was 'a betrayal of future generations and folks on both sides of the aisle' and warned that could spark political backlash.
Maloy's proposal 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. The land would have been used for water infrastructure (like reservoirs and wells), an airport expansion in St. George, new and widened roads, recreation and housing.
The proposal was widely celebrated by the water district and local governments, who said it would help them make adjustments as the region continues to experience rapid growth. But nearby tribes, environmentalists and politicians from both sides of the aisle were skeptical.
Utah News Dispatch, like the Capital Chronicle, is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Utah News Dispatch maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor McKenzie Romero for questions: info@utahnewsdispatch.com.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
19 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump doesn't have to quit UNESCO again because we never lawfully rejoined
President Trump recently announced that the United States was quitting the United Nations Economic, Social, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) for the third time. This is good news – UNESCO has championed gender ideology in education, discriminatory DEI policies, and the entire litany of woke doctrines. It has also worked to erase Jewish history in the Holy Land. But the administration did not need to bother with formally withdrawing from the treaty — from a constitutional perspective, the U.S. hasn't been a member at least since Trump first quit it in 2017. When Biden sought to rejoin the Paris-based agency in 2023, he neglected to seek authorization from Congress. No one made a big deal of it then, but it means that, for domestic law purposes, the U.S. never actually rejoined. This is an important point with implications for numerous international organizations, especially as the administration sets out on an agenda of U.N. reform. Membership in international organizations was not supposed to be a political revolving door. Congress authorizes membership at the outset. After the U.S. leaves, a whole new congressional authorization must be obtained by any president wishing to rejoin. Under the Constitution, the president can only bring the country into a treaty with the 'consent' of two-thirds of the Senate. That is a substantial hurdle, and deliberately so: Commitments to foreign countries can be harder to pull out of than domestic ones. They can become a way of imposing obligations on the country that are then out of reach of the democratic process. In the 20th century, presidents have often relied on the approval of a majority of both Houses instead, a dubious practice but now widely followed. When the U.S. first joined UNESCO in 1946 (and the World Health Organization in 1948), President Truman was acting pursuant a law passed by both Houses authorizing him to do so. But Congress did not reauthorize Biden's reentry to UNESCO. Instead, he treated the 1946 authorization as a lifetime membership, when in fact it was only a one-time pass. If the U.S. quit a treaty that the Senate had ratified — say the NATO treaty — then a decision to rejoin would be subject to a new requirement of advice and consent. Congressional authorization is a stand-in for Senate ratification and should be subject to the same rules. Consider a parallel case: If a president fires a senate-confirmed appointee, and he or a subsequent president wishes to return him to the same post, no one would argue that he could do so simply on the grounds that the Senate had previously confirmed him. Indeed, Andrew Jackson's Attorney General resigned from his position, and was then reappointed to it — only to be rejected by the Senate. As a statutory matter, the 1946 agreement on UNESCO allowed the president to 'accept membership' — not accept, and accept, and accept again. If a congressional authorization is good for infinite rounds of quitting and rejoining, it makes getting out of international agreements harder than getting in – exactly the opposite of what the Framers intended. The argument of perpetual authorization was invented by Jimmy Carter, who purported to rejoin the International Labor Organization in 1980 based on a 1934 authorization. President Bush neglected to seek congressional approval when he rejoined UNESCO in 2002, nearly two decades after Reagan quit. Neither instance attracted much attention, and two modern actions do not prove a constitutional rule. There is a good argument for the Trump administration having withdrawn from UNESCO as if it were a member — to avoid any doubt or subsequent quibbling. But the administration should clarify that it is 'quitting' only out of an excess of caution, and does not see the U.S. as properly joined, which is consistent with its nonpayment of any dues. To avoid abuse by future administrations, Congress should repeal the antiquated authorizations for UNESCO and WHO, which Trump also announced withdrawal from. If a subsequent president wants to rejoin, he should have to sell it to Congress on the organization's existing records, not the hopes and dreams of the 1940s.
The Hill
19 minutes ago
- The Hill
Senate Democrats launch radio ad attacking GOP over cuts to rural radio funding
The Senate Democrats' campaign arm is launching a new radio ad Wednesday attacking Republicans for slashing funding for rural radio stations as a part of more than $1 billion Republicans made in cuts to public broadcasting in their recissions package. 'Thank you for listening to your local radio station. But stations like these might not be around for long,' a narrator says in the 30-second ad, which was first shared with The Hill. 'Last month in D.C., Republican Senators cut radio funding, voting to end weather alerts, community news and our way to stay connected,' the narrator continued. 'Rural America relies on radio. But Republican politicians left us behind.' They added, 'We can't trust them to fight for us.' The ads are being aired in recognition of National Radio Day, and they're expected to run in rural stations in Alaska, Iowa, Maine, North Carolina, Ohio and Texas, all of which Senate Democrats are eyeing as potential pick-up opportunities next year. 'Rural communities rely on local radio to stay connected on everything from local news to lifesaving alerts about severe weather — but Republican Senators left them behind,' Maeve Coyle, a spokeswoman for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC), said in a statement. 'Republican senators will be forced to explain to their constituents why they're robbing the programs that support their communities in order to pay for a giveaway to billionaires,' she added. President Trump signed a recissions package last month, which rescinds around $9 billion Congress had previously approved for funding for the Corporation of Public Broadcasting (CPB), which helps fund NPR and PBS and its affiliates, and global aid programs. CPB is contending with more than $1 billion in cuts alone. Federal funding makes up a smaller percentage of the money NPR and PBS rely on, but rural stations have already warned it will impact them more severely since it makes up a higher proportion of their overall funding. Republicans have attacked NPR and PBS, arguing they're liberally biased and their programs push 'radical left positions,' which its leaders have pushed back on. Contending with the cuts, the CPB announced it would begin to shut down, with its president Patricia Harrison saying in a statement 'we now face the difficult reality of closing our operations.'
San Francisco Chronicle
19 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
As hurricane season collides with immigration agenda, fears increase for those without legal status
If a major hurricane approaches Central Florida this season, Maria knows it's dangerous to stay inside her wooden, trailer-like home. In past storms, she evacuated to her sister's sturdier house. If she couldn't get there, a shelter set up at the local high school served as a refuge if needed. But with aggressively accelerating detentions and deportations of immigrants across her community of Apopka, 20 miles (32 kilometers) northwest of Orlando, Maria, an agricultural worker from Mexico without permanent U.S. legal status, doesn't know if those options are safe. All risk encountering immigration enforcement agents. 'They can go where they want,' said Maria, 50, who insisted The Associated Press not use her last name for fear of detention. 'There is no limit.' Natural disasters have long posed singular risks for people in the United States without permanent legal status. But with the arrival of peak Atlantic hurricane season, immigrants and their advocates say President Donald Trump's militaristic immigration enforcement agenda has increased the danger. Places considered neutral spaces by immigrants such as schools, hospitals and emergency management agencies are now suspect, and agreements by local law enforcement to collaborate with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement make them more vulnerable, choosing between physical safety or avoiding detention. 'Am I going to risk the storm or risk endangering my family at the shelter?' said Dominique O'Connor, an organizer at the Farmworker Association of Florida. 'You're going to meet enforcement either way.' For O'Connor and for many immigrants, it's about storms. But people without permanent legal status could face these decisions anywhere that extreme heat, wildfires or other severe weather could necessitate evacuating, getting supplies or even seeking medical care. Federal and state agencies have said little on whether immigration enforcement would be suspended in a disaster. It wouldn't make much difference to Maria: 'With all we've lived, we've lost trust.' New policies deepen concerns Efforts by Trump's Republican administration to exponentially expand immigration enforcement capacity mean many of the agencies active in disaster response are increasingly entangled in immigration enforcement. Since January, hundreds of law enforcement agencies have signed 287(g) agreements, allowing them to perform certain immigration enforcement actions. Most of the agreements are in hurricane-prone Florida and Texas. Florida's Division of Emergency Management oversees building the state's new detention facilities, like the one called 'Alligator Alcatraz' in the Everglades. Federal Emergency Management Agency funds are being used to build additional detention centers around the country, and the Department of Homeland Security temporarily reassigned some FEMA staff to assist ICE. The National Guard, often seen passing out food and water after disasters, has been activated to support U.S. Customs and Border Protection operations and help at detention centers. These dual roles can make for an intimidating scene during a disaster. After floods in July, more than 2,100 personnel from 20 state agencies aided the far-reaching response effort in Central Texas, along with CBP officers. Police controlled entry into hard-hit areas. Texas Department of Public Safety and private security officers staffed entrances to disaster recovery centers set up by FEMA. That unsettled even families with permanent legal status, said Rae Cardenas, executive director of Doyle Community Center in Kerrville, Texas. Cardenas helped coordinate with the Mexican Consulate in San Antonio to replace documents for people who lived behind police checkpoints. 'Some families are afraid to go get their mail because their legal documents were washed away,' Cardenas said. In Florida, these policies could make people unwilling to drive evacuation roads. Traffic stops are a frequent tool of detention, and Florida passed a law in February criminalizing entry into the state by those without legal status, though a judge temporarily blocked it. There may be fewer places to evacuate now that public shelters, often guarded by police or requiring ID to enter, are no longer considered 'protected areas' by DHS. The agency in January rescinded a policy of President Joe Biden, a Democrat, to avoid enforcement in places like schools, medical facilities and emergency response sites. The fears extend even into disaster recovery. On top of meeting law enforcement at FEMA recovery centers, mixed-status households that qualify for help from the agency might hesitate to apply for fear of their information being accessed by other agencies, said Esmeralda Ledezma, communications associate with the Houston-based nonprofit Woori Juntos. 'Even if you have the right to federal aid, you're afraid to be punished for it,' Ledezma said. In past emergencies, DHS has put out messaging stating it would suspend immigration enforcement. The agency's policy now is unclear. DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said in an email that CBP had not issued any guidance 'because there have been no natural disasters affecting border enforcement.' She did not address what directions were given during CBP's activation in the Texas floods or whether ICE would be active during a disaster. Florida's Division of Emergency Management did not respond to questions related to its policies toward people without legal status. Texas' Division of Emergency Management referred The Associated Press to Republican Gov. Greg Abbott's office, which did not respond. Building local resilience is a priority In spite of the crackdown, local officials in some hurricane-prone areas are expanding outreach to immigrant populations. 'We are trying to move forward with business as usual,' said Gracia Fernandez, language access coordinator for Alachua County in Central Florida. The county launched a program last year to translate and distribute emergency communications in Spanish, Haitian Creole and other languages. Now staffers want to spread the word that county shelters won't require IDs, but since they're public spaces, Fernandez acknowledged there's not much they can do if ICE comes. 'There is still a risk,' she said. 'But we will try our best to help people feel safe.' As immigrant communities are pushed deeper into the shadows, more responsibility falls on nonprofits, and communities themselves, to keep each other safe. Hope Community Center in Apopka has pushed local officials to commit to not requiring IDs at shelters and sandbag distribution points. During an evacuation, the facility becomes an alternative shelter and a command center, from which staffers translate and send out emergency communications in multiple languages. For those who won't leave their homes, staffers do door-to-door wellness checks, delivering food and water. 'It's a very grassroots, underground operation,' said Felipe Sousa Lazaballet, the center's executive director. Preparing the community is challenging when it's consumed by the daily crises wrought by detentions and deportations, Sousa Lazaballet said. 'All of us are in triage mode,' he said. 'Every day there is an emergency, so the community is not necessarily thinking about hurricane season yet. That's why we have to have a plan.' ___
