Latest news with #SutherlandInstitute
Yahoo
a day ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
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@ SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
a day ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Mike Lee brings back proposal to sell public land in Utah, other Western states
Utah Republican Sen. Mike Lee, right, participates in a forum hosted by the Sutherland Institute at the University of Utah's Hinckley Institute of Politics in 2024. (Photo: Katie McKellar, 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 Nevada, 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. 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.' Nevada Democratic Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto slammed Lee's proposal after it was introduced, saying it was developed without input from Nevadans. Lee's proposal 'ignores provisions for affordable housing and eliminates funding Nevada relies on for our schools and water conservation projects,' Cortez Masto said in a statement. 'Shoving lands sales in a reconciliation bill in order to pay for tax cuts for billionaires is not the way forward, and I'll continue to fight against this misguided proposal.' Lee's proposal also didn't fly for a number of environmental groups, including the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, which called it 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. This story was originally published in Utah News Dispatch.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Utah Sen. Mike Lee brings back proposal to sell public land in Western states
Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, 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) 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@
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
U.S. Sen. Mike Lee brings back proposal to sell public land in Utah, Idaho, other Western states
U.S. Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, (right) 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) U.S. Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, 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, including Idaho. 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. More than 100 environmental groups sign letter opposing return of public lands sale Introduced Wednesday evening, Lee's amendment to congressional Republicans' budget bill, nicknamed the 'big, beautiful bill,' renews an effort initially spearheaded by U.S. Reps. 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. Idaho is among the states included in Lee's proposal. 'How out of touch do you have to be to think our public lands should be sold off to pay for billionaire tax breaks?' Idaho Democratic Party Chairwoman Lauren Necochea said in an emailed statement on Thursday. 'This shameless scheme would force the sale of millions of acres, including land right here in Idaho. These are the places Idahoans hunt, fish, hike, and pass down to the next generation.' Necochea slammed Idaho's U.S. Sens. Jim Risch and Mike Crapo, both Republicans, for voting on April 7 in opposition to the 'Public Lands in Public Hands Act' bill amendment. That amendment would have blocked the sale of public lands to help pay for the Republicans' budget reconciliation proposals. U.S. Rep. Russ Fulcher, R-Idaho, also voted against the amendment. The only member of Idaho's congressional delegation to vote in favor of of the amendment to protect public lands from sale was U.S. Rep. Mike Simpson, also a Republican. 'Now the bill heads to the committee Risch sits on, and if his record tells us anything, he'll side with the billionaires again,' Necochea stated. 'Idahoans have made it clear: our public lands are not for sale. If Risch and Crapo keep siding with out-of-state developers and mega-donors, we'll make sure they have plenty of time to enjoy the lands they refused to protect.' According to Lee's new amendment, the U.S. Forest Service and the BLM 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.' SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE 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.' Long-thwarted efforts to sell public lands see new life under Trump 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 Utah's 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. The Greater Yellowstone Coalition on Thursday said in a press release that it is calling on Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming U.S. senators to stand up and speak out against Lee's proposal. 'Public lands belong to all Americans and are vitally important to the communities of Greater Yellowstone and other iconic western landscapes,' said Greater Yellowstone Coalition Executive Director Scott Christensen in the press release. 'Our national public lands are not a luxury, they're our legacy. These are outdoor spaces that connect us to each other, fuel the economies of western states, and provide clean drinking water to millions of Americans downstream. Once these lands are sold off, they're gone forever.' Idaho Capital Sun editor-in-chief Christina Lords contributed to this story. Utah News Dispatch, like the Idaho Capital Sun, 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@ SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
24-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Opinion: In fight between Maryland school district and parental rights, U.S. Supreme Court should protect religious freedom
Can schools tell parents they cannot direct how their children are taught about sensitive topics in public schools, even when the law gives parents that right? The U.S. Supreme Court held oral arguments in a case, Mahmoud v. Taylor, that raised that question on Tuesday morning. The court should now clarify that depriving parents of a widely recognized right is the type of burden the Constitution is intended to prevent. The questions asked during the argument suggest that the justices are inclined to do that. The case involves a dispute between parents and their local school district in Maryland. The parents are motivated by different religious faiths but share a conviction that they are responsible for how their children are taught sensitive topics about sexuality and gender. When their local school district introduced books about gender identity in early grades, the parents asked to excuse their children from this instruction. The district initially agreed. But later, the district announced it would no longer honor the parents' requests to opt their children out, citing concerns about administering the opt-outs, possible absenteeism and risks to other children's feelings. This case raises the question of whether revoking parents' ability to direct how their children are taught about sensitive topics burdens their religious beliefs. The divided federal court of appeals panel which previously heard this case said no. The judges on that panel needed to differentiate the current case from a prior precedent. In the prior case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Amish parents have the right to excuse their children from attending school after 8th grade. This ruling was based on the belief that children at that age should focus on preparing for a religious vocation, which secondary education would interfere with. In reality, it is pretty simple to see how the district's actions in the Maryland case significantly burden the religious practice of the parents seeking accommodation of their beliefs. A brief filed in the Supreme Court by Sutherland Institute explains how by pointing to a remarkable consistency in the states' laws. The state of Maryland and virtually every other state (there are three possible exceptions) recognize the right of parents to excuse their children from instructions about sexual topics. Typically, the laws require schools to notify parents of the planned teaching, to allow parents to review curriculum materials, and to empower parents to excuse their children from the discussions for religious or other reasons. Most states will teach the children unless the parents object (opt-out), but others require the parents to give affirmative consent before including a child in the instruction (opt-in). This broad consensus among the states, including Maryland, makes the burden clear. The parents simply ask for the ability to fulfill their religious obligation to direct their children's education on these sensitive topics. The district is unlawfully denying an accommodation available to nearly all other parents nationwide. That near-universal consensus also illustrates why the district's excuses for not honoring the parents' wishes are not compelling. Maryland and nearly all other states recognize this accommodation is feasible and desirable. Whatever extra work it requires for the school pales in comparison to the burden it places on the religious practice of children and their parents. State and local laws and practices designed to accommodate the religious practices of citizens, like those of the states described in our brief, should be encouraged. They can prevent expensive and time-consuming lawsuits and assure religious organizations and people of faith that their rights are secure. In this case, the district's actions have the opposite effect. They signal that the accommodations elected representatives adopt cannot be counted on when they run contrary to ideological preoccupations. That sets a precedent with wide-ranging negative implications. The Supreme Court should prevent this result by vindicating the rights of the parents against the burdens the school district has placed on the exercise of their religion.
