12 hours ago
Controversial land bill faces rewrite after public backlash
Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) says he's revising a proposal to sell millions of acres of public land to housing developers after backlash from outdoor rec enthusiasts, Axios' Erin Alberty reports.
State of play: Across California, land around Mount Shasta, Big Sur, Mendocino, the Eastern Sierra and along the Pacific Crest Trail could be eligible for sale under the current draft, according to a recent analysis by a conservation nonprofit.
Why it matters: Privatizing that land could limit access to popular hiking, camping and picnic areas near destinations frequented by San Franciscans, including around Yosemite National Park and Lake Tahoe, The Wilderness Society found.
The big picture: The Republican-led proposal would require the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management to put up to 3.3 million acres on the market for housing development.
The bill's focus is on parcels outside of protected lands like national parks, monuments and wilderness areas — which are exempt — but near roads and other development deemed suitable by local and state lawmakers.
More than 250 million acres across 11 Western states could be eligible for sale.
Caveat: National parks, monuments, recreation areas and other federally protected lands would be excluded.
The intrigue: The proposal has sparked outrage in longtime Republican strongholds in rural parts of the state.
Outdoor writer Todd Tanner has long warned of a conservative contradiction — a love for public land alongside support for a party that has threatened to sell it, SFGATE reports.
Follow the money: Most proceeds from the potential sale of those public lands — projected to bring in between $5 billion and $10 billion over the next decade — would go to the U.S. Treasury. Just 5% would go to local governments.
What they're saying:"If Republicans have their way, we will never get our public lands back once they are privatized," Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) said in a statement to Axios.
What we're watching: Whether a revised proposal could include protections for long-used public trails for hiking and skiing access.
