Birds Eye View - What’s Going On
Recently we saw an unprecedented move by the House to try and add federal land disposals into the federal budget reconciliation process. While that attempt was defeated, a new and far worse proposal has reared its head in the Senate.
The overarching problem is that the Federal Budget Reconciliation process is NOT the place to deal with federal land disposals and sales.
Point Of No Nuance: WWF stands firmly against wholesale transfer or sale of federal public lands.
✏️ Point of Nuance
- In a federal budget reconciliation process amendments are meant to be added to generate or cut revenue, these are all actions that can be upheld OR overturned in future congresses depending on the country's need.
- A public lands sale is final and you can only sell public lands once. The process to dispose of federal public lands should be put through a well vetted thorough process that includes multiple points of public participation. If this amendment is upheld a precedent is set.
- The Senate, unlike the House, has a formal rule against authorizing new policy in a budget reconciliation process, so it is possible the parliamentarian will rule that this language is out of order in the budget bill.
What lands are in Utah Sen. Mike Lee’s Senate ENR committee proposal?
- The proposal mandates the Secretary of Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to dispose of lands in the next 5 years. These lands are within a narrow category and subject to a process of selection that results in between 0.50 % and 0.75 % of USFS and BLM lands.
- Ballpark estimates are: 1 - 2 million acres of Bureau of Land Management and 0.5 - 1 million acres of Forest Service.
- States include: Wyoming, Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, and Washington. Montana is specifically exempted from these disposal requirements.
- Also exempt from this bill are lands like National Parks, Wilderness areas, Refuges, etc as well as lands with grazing leases, oil and gas leases, or other legally recognized right, title, lease, claim, permit, or right-of-way.
✏️ Point of Nuance
- Nothing equitably distributes acreage among the states. Theoretically, one state could nominate 2 million acres for sale and purchase for fair market value, leaving the impact disproportionately impacting one, or just a handful of states.
- The exemptions do not include wilderness study areas, inventoried roadless areas, or Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs).
- Because of all of these exemptions, it’s actually quite difficult to ascertain what lands could be subject to disposal. If the public can’t figure it out, and if Congress is unwilling to share, then this proposal is clearly not ready for primetime.
- 90% of funds generated goes directly to the US Treasury, 5% to adjacent communities, and ONLY 5% goes to support public land management.
Common methods for the disposal of federal lands
Federal Land Policy & Management Act [BLM]
- These are sales that are directed by resource management plans. Resource management plans take a long time to create and include public input. If BLM decides to dispose of land, another round of public comment is required.
Standalone Congressional Bill [other federal lands]
- A regular order of authorization — a thoughtfully created piece of legislation that usually has stakeholder buy-in, and takes a significant amount of time to work through both chambers.
✏️ Point of Nuance
- Land disposal isn't inherently a bad thing but the process and public voice matters. Lands that are sold or exchanged through the existing processes provide public input & support local communities, reduce the amount of public land checkerboarding, and so much more.
- The current proposal will bypass the public involvement, accelerate the process and will almost entirely eliminate the public's participation. It sets a precedent we can not allow to happen.
What is the method of
disposal of lands in this proposal
- Within 60 days of enactment—and every 60 days thereafter—the Secretaries must publish a list of BLM and NFS lands proposed for disposal.
- Lands can be nominated by the Secretary, and “interested parties”, which includes States and units of local government.
- Nominations must demonstrate how the disposal would help meet local housing needs, or address associated community needs
- Preference for disposal is given to lands that: are adjacent to existing development, have access to existing infrastructure, are suitable for residential housing, reduce checkerboard patterns, or are isolated or difficult to manage.
- Lands may be disposed of at fair market value by sale, auction, or other methods.
- An individual or entity may purchase no more than two tracts per sale, unless: The purchaser owns adjacent land, or the purchaser is a state or unit of local government.
✏️ Point of Nuance
- It is unclear if “interested parties” also includes Tribes, corporations, individuals, or other persons.
- “Associated community needs” could be used to open the door to use the lands for far more than housing or infrastructure associated with housing. Community needs could include economic development (data centers, golf courses etc).
- Though preference is given to lands that meet these qualifications, they are not required. The Secretary retains discretion to determine other criteria.
- Preference is given for lands that are adjacent to existing development AND lands that are isolated or difficult to manage. This clearly indicates that there is little to no tie to meeting local housing needs.
- Fair market value or higher means that in the locations with the most pressing housing needs, prices will be high and homes will not be affordable.
- “Other methods” mean that sales do not need to be public or noticed. They should simply sell to an individual, corporation, or state quietly, so long as it is for fair market value.
- The buyer limitation exception does not appear to include Tribes. Tribes would be subject to the same two tracts per sale limitation as other buyers.
What about selling public lands for affordable housing?
- At no point in this proposal is the word “affordable” used when referring to housing needs.
- When a community faces an affordable housing need, placing the housing on the outskirts that requires the ownership of a car or the ability to travel into the community center is not feasible. Affordable housing should be built within the community and close to the bulk of the paying jobs.
- The need to provide affordable housing is a real problem, but there currently are legal, reasonable avenues for Congress and the administration to address those needs without wholesale selling off public lands that future generations will never get back.
- If you have to buy the land to build on it, especially in communities with a housing crisis, the housing won’t be affordable.
- The real problem is zoning, permitting delays, and local bureaucracy–not lack of land. You can't fix a large-scale housing crisis with a land sale. Selling off federal land to build houses is like draining a lake to water your lawn–it doesn’t solve the underlying problem.
This Should Concern You.
While the entire proposal is extremely concerning, the message needs to be that the federal budget reconciliation process is NOT the place for federal land disposals no matter the content and that this provision needs to be removed from the ENR committee proposal before heading to the Senate floor.
Senator Barrasso (202) 224-6441
Senator Lummis (202) 224-3424
Congresswoman Hageman (202) 225-2311
Be respectful, share your concerns, and remember we all love this state even if we have different opinions.
“Members of the Senate need to recognize that our public lands are an asset unique to the American people and should not be liquidated for short term gain. As their constituents, we must ensure they understand that proposals like this are not congruent with how the people of this country experience and value public spaces. We understand the need to improve management, and even to facilitate land transactions to do so, but a budget reconciliation process is not the place to hastily dispose of more than 2 million acres of our shared estate.”
Jess Johnson, WWF Government Affairs Director jessijohnson@wyomingwildlife.org