Mike Lee brings back proposal to sell public land in Western states
Sen. Mike Lee, a Utah Republican, participates in a forum hosted by the Sutherland Institute at the University of Utah's Hinckley Institute of Politics on Oct. 14, 2024. (Katie McKellar/Utah News Dispatch)
A version of this story originally appeared in the Utah News Dispatch.
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, Colorado 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.
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.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
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 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.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Insider
an hour ago
- Business Insider
Trump wants to cut federal housing funds in half, and even Republicans are questioning it
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Scott Turner kept repeating the same phrases to Congress in defense of President Donald Trump's proposal to cut the agency's budget by 51%. "It's time for a paradigm shift." "We have to refocus." "We want to be efficient and effective, not bloated and bureaucratic." Democrats on House and Senate appropriations subcommittees were outraged — and even some Republicans were skeptical. Turner was tasked with explaining what Trump's proposed $45 billion cut to HUD's funding would look like in practice. The agency would be among the hardest hit parts of the federal government under Trump's plan to eliminate $163 billion in federal spending. But the secretary offered little detail on plans for how his agency would continue serving millions of older, disabled, and low-income Americans, people struggling to recover from disasters like hurricanes and wildfires, and those experiencing homelessness. "The goal here is not to serve less Americans. The goal here is to serve Americans better," Turner said during his testimony before the House subcommittee on Transportation, Housing, and Urban Development on June 10. While Democratic lawmakers were particularly critical of Turner's approach and Trump's massive budget cut request, some Republicans also probed Turner for more detailed explanations he didn't provide. The hearings highlighted how the nation's major housing affordability challenges have become a bipartisan concern. "The federal government doesn't have all the answers, and the budget empowers collaboration with states and localities," HUD spokesperson Kasey Lovett told Business Insider. Few details, lots of frustration During the House hearing, Republican Rep. David Joyce asked Turner how HUD plans to continue helping victims of disasters, like flooding and fires, if the agency slashes funding for the Community Development Block Grant — Disaster Recovery program, as the budget proposes. The agency has long helped FEMA rebuild homes destroyed in natural disasters that lack sufficient insurance, as well as repair roads and bridges. In response, Turner insisted that HUD "will not allow disaster recovery and those that need assistance in disaster recovery to be lost on us" and that HUD is simply pursuing a "different way of distributing these funds." Joyce, who represents Northeast Ohio, wasn't satisfied. "Thank you, sir, that was a great answer, but it didn't demonstrate a plan. Do you have a plan?" the congressman responded. Turner ultimately conceded that the plan for supporting disaster victims "is forthcoming." Joyce ended the exchange by warning that the agency has a role to play. "The one thing I know is, you're right. Disasters come. All over the country, disasters come. And you need to be ready for them." Rep. Rutherford, a Florida Republican, pressed Turner on how states will help support homeownership in low-income communities when the president's budget proposes eliminating HUD's Self-Help Homeownership Opportunity Program (SHOP), a competitive grant program that Rutherford said has been successful in his district. "Everywhere that homeownership went up, violent crime went down," said Rutherford, a former sheriff. "How are we going to address this issue if we're doing away with SHOP?" Turner replied by saying that states can support homeownership programs if they see fit going forward, but didn't clarify where that funding would come from. Spokespeople for Rutherford and Joyce didn't immediately return BI's requests for comment. 'People will die' Democratic lawmakers expressed more direct frustration about the program cuts and lack of detail the secretary presented. "People will die," Rep. Mike Quigley, an Illinois Democrat, told Turner of HUD's proposed cuts to homelessness services, including the elimination of the Housing for Persons with AIDS program. "If you just want to say we've got to cut these things because that's our plan, I'd respect you a lot more than telling us that you care about people as you put them on the street." Turner replied that the agency isn't just cutting funding but is "going to be more effective and more efficient." "How?" Quigley asked. "It's a new paradigm. It's a new way to do things," Turner replied. During Turner's testimony before the Senate on June 11, Democratic Sen. Brian Schatz, who's made housing a key priority, urged Turner to reinstate a bipartisan program Schatz championed that incentivizes states and localities to cut red tape that hampers housing construction. "It's the most significant pro-housing deregulatory mechanism that we've passed," Schatz said. Turner didn't answer Schatz's question on the eliminated program, and simply said he's encouraging local leaders to find ways to cut regulations. But the president's budget isn't law. Government funding is set to run out in September, and Congress has the final say on what the federal budget looks like. The House hearing concluded with the chairwoman, Republican Rep. Stephanie Bice, suggesting that Turner hasn't had enough time in the few months he's been in office to nail down more specifics about where HUD funding will go and how programs will be reformed. "Is it safe to say that you have a framework for a plan that you want to move forward, but maybe not all of the nuts and bolts that you need to be able to present those details?" Bice asked Turner. "Yes, ma'am," Turner replied.
an hour ago
Cities brace for large crowds at anti-Trump 'No Kings' demonstrations across the US
PHILADELPHIA -- Cities large and small were preparing for major demonstrations Saturday across the U.S. against President Donald Trump, as officials urge calm, National Guard troops mobilize and Trump attends a military parade in Washington to mark the Army's 250th anniversary. A flagship 'No Kings' march and rally are planned in Philadelphia, but no events are scheduled to take place in Washington, D.C., where the military parade will take place on Trump's birthday The demonstrations are gaining additional fuel from protests flaring up around the country over federal immigration enforcement raids and Trump ordering National Guard troops and Marines to Los Angeles where protesters blocked a freeway and set cars on fire. Police responded with tear gas, rubber bullets and flash-bang grenades while officials enforced curfews in Los Angeles and Democratic governors called Trump's Guard deployment 'an alarming abuse of power' that "shows the Trump administration does not trust local law enforcement.' Governors and city officials vowed to protect the right to protest and to show no tolerance for violence. Republican governors in Virginia, Texas, Nebraska and Missouri are mobilizing National Guard troops to help law enforcement manage demonstrations. There will be 'zero tolerance' for violence, destruction or disrupting traffic, and "if you violate the law, you're going to be arrested," Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin told reporters Friday. In Missouri, Gov. Mike Kehoe issued a similar message, vowing to take a proactive approach and not to 'wait for chaos to ensue." Nebraska's governor on Friday also signed an emergency proclamation for activating his state's National Guard, a step his office called 'a precautionary measure in reaction to recent instances of civil unrest across the country.' Organizers say that one march will go to the gates of Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida, where Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis warned demonstrators that the 'line is very clear' and not to cross it. Governors also urged calm. On social media, Washington state Gov. Bob Ferguson, a Democrat, called for peaceful protests over the weekend, to ensure Trump doesn't send military to the state. 'Donald Trump wants to be able to say that we cannot handle our own public safety in Washington state,' Ferguson said. In a statement Friday, Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs, a Democrat, urged 'protestors to remain peaceful and calm as they exercise their First Amendment right to make their voices heard.' Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, a Democrat, said his administration and state police are working with police in Philadelphia ahead of what organizers estimate could be a crowd approaching 100,000 people. Philadelphia's top prosecutor, District Attorney Larry Krasner, warned that anyone coming to Philadelphia to break the law or immigration agents exceeding their authority will face arrest. He invoked civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. as a guide for demonstrators. 'If you are doing what Martin Luther King would have done, you're going to be fine," Krasner told a news conference. Some law enforcement agencies announced they were ramping up efforts for the weekend. In California, state troopers will be on 'tactical alert," which means all days off are cancelled for all officers. The 'No Kings' theme was orchestrated by the 50501 Movement, to support democracy and against what they call the authoritarian actions of the Trump administration. The name 50501 stands for 50 states, 50 protests, one movement. Protests earlier this year have denounced Trump and billionaire adviser Elon Musk. Protesters have called for Trump to be 'dethroned' as they compare his actions to that of a king and not a democratically elected president. The No Kings Day of Defiance has been organized to reject authoritarianism, billionaire-first politics and the militarization of the country's democracy, according to a statement by organizers. Organizers intend for the protests to counter the Army's 250th anniversary celebration — which Trump has ratcheted up to include a military parade, which is estimated to cost $25 million to $45 million that the Army expects to attract as many as 200,000 people. The event will feature hundreds of military vehicles and aircraft and thousands of soldiers. It also happens to be Trump's 79th birthday and Flag Day. 'The flag doesn't belong to President Trump. It belongs to us,' the 'No Kings' website says. 'On June 14th, we're showing up everywhere he isn't — to say no thrones, no crowns, no kings.' Protests in nearly 2,000 locations are scheduled around the country, from city blocks to small towns, from courthouse steps to community parks, organizers said. Demonstrations are expected to include speeches and marches, organizers said in a call Wednesday. The group says a core principle behind all 'No Kings' events is a commitment to nonviolent action, and participants are expected to seek to de-escalate any confrontation. No weapons of any kind should be taken to 'No Kings' events, according to the website. The No Kings Day of Defiance is expected to be the largest single-day mobilization since Trump returned to office, organizers said. Organizers said they are preparing for millions of people to take to the streets across all 50 states and commonwealths.
an hour ago
Takeaways from AP's investigation of US death benefits program for public safety officers
A federal program that provides benefits to families of police officers and firefighters who die and become disabled on duty is rapidly growing while facing criticism for increasing delays in deciding claims. Congress created the Public Safety Officers' Benefits program in 1976 to guarantee that the spouses and children of officers who put their lives on the line would receive financial support. But repeated expansions in eligibility approved by Congress, including three passed in the last five years, have made the program more popular and complex to administer. Critics say the program fails some families by taking too long to grant or deny benefits and making inconsistent rulings. An Associated Press analysis found that hundreds of families are waiting years to learn whether they qualify for payments, and more are ultimately being denied. New Jersey widow Sharline Volcy learned this month that she'd been awarded the benefits, more than 3 1/2 years after her husband, Ronald Donat, died while training at the Gwinnett County Police Academy in Georgia. Volcy said she was grateful for the aid, which will provide some financial security and help pay for her two daughters to go to college. But she said the long wait was stressful, when she was told time and again the claim remained under review and ultimately saw her inquiries ignored. 'They told me they didn't know how long it would take because they don't have a deadline. That's the hardest thing to hear,' she said. 'I felt defeated.' She said lawyers didn't want to take the case, and a plea for help to her congressperson went nowhere. She said she'd given up hope and was lucky she had a job as an airport gate agent in the meantime. Volcy's experience isn't unique, and some cases take longer. As of late April, more than 120 claims by surviving relatives or disabled first responders have been awaiting initial determinations or rulings on their appeals for more than five years, according AP's findings. About a dozen have waited over a decade for an answer. The program has a goal of making determinations within one year but has not taken steps to track its progress, according to a recent Government Accountability Office report. But roughly three in 10 cases have not met that timeframe in recent years. As of late late April, 900 claims had been pending longer than one year. That includes claims from nearly every state. Republican lawmakers have introduced a bill to require the program to make determinations within 270 days. Over the last year, the denial rate has increased, with roughly one in three death and disability claims getting rejected. Applicants can appeal to a hearing officer and then the director if they choose, but that isn't common. Many say they can't afford attorneys or want to get on with their lives. Justice Department officials, who oversee the program, say they're making complicated decisions about whether cases meet legal criteria. 'Death and disability claims involving complex medical and causation issues, voluminous evidence and conflicting medical opinions, take longer to determine, as do claims in various stages of appeal,' they said in a statement. The program started as a simple $50,000 payout for the families of officers who were fatally shot on duty or died as a result of other violence or dangers. But Congress expanded the program in 1990 to cover some first responders who were disabled on duty, which made some determinations harder to reach. A 1998 law added educational benefits for the spouses and children of those deceased and disabled officers. Since 2020, Congress has passed three laws making many other types of deaths and disabilities eligible, including deaths related to COVID-19, deaths and injuries of those working rescue and cleanup operations after the September 2001 attacks, and responders who committed suicide under certain circumstances. Annual claims have more than doubled in the last five years, from 500 in 2019 to roughly 1,200 today. While many applicants have criticized the increasing delays, the leading group that represents the relatives of officers who die on duty has been silent. Critics say that's because the group, Concerns of Police Survivors, has a financial incentive not to criticize the program, which has awarded it tens of millions of dollars in grant funding in recent decades. The Missouri-based nonprofit recently received a new $6 million grant from the program to for its work with deceased officers' relatives, including counseling, hosting memorial events, educating agencies about the program and assisting with claims. The group's founder and retired executive director, Suzie Sawyer, said she was warned many years ago that fighting too hard for claimants could jeopardize its grant funding. But current spokesperson Sara Slone said advocacy isn't the group's mission and that it works 'hand in hand' with PSOB to assist applicants and provide education about benefits. Lisa Afolayan's husband died after a training exercise at the Border Patrol academy more than 16 years ago, but she's still fighting the program for benefits. An autopsy found that Nate Afolayan died from heat illness after completing a 1.5-mile test run in 88 degree heat, at a high altitude in the New Mexico desert. The program had awarded benefits to families after similar training deaths, dating back to an officer who died at an academy in 1988. But its independent investigation blamed Nate's death on sickle cell trait, a genetic condition that's usually benign but has been linked to rare exertion-related deaths in police, military and sports training. The program denied Lisa's claim and her subsequent appeals, arguing the death wasn't the result of heat along and didn't qualify. The program stood by its denial in 2024, even after a federal appeals court said it may have failed to adequately consider the weather's role and violated a law barring discrimination on the basis of genetic information.
