Everyone knows I’m a bit skeptical of all the hoopla around “selling off large swaths of public lands” (except for small areas around communities.) Some of the stories refer to an E&E News story which is behind a paywall. A generous TSW reader shared that piece with me, and I thought it would be helpful to share with you all.
First let’s back up. The idea of selling of “large swaths” has been a drumbeat of some of each party (what we might call “cumulative grandstanding.”)
In the words of our friends at Center for American Progress
As questions swirl about the Trump administration’s new federal lands and housing initiative, the extreme proposals gaining traction in Congress to sell off large swaths of public lands represent a clear and dangerous attack on America’s great outdoors.
As it happens, in February the same folks were warning that the Prez’s idea of a sovereign wealth fund “may make selling out and selling off public lands irresistible.”
But back to the current iteration. Yes, some Republicans are discussing selling some federal lands for housing, but it appears not “large swaths.” If I had a dollar for every bad idea someone was discussing in Congress, I could afford to fund a Chair in Heterodox Thought at the University of Montana within a week.
So let’s go to the comprehensive story on this over at E&E News.. (April 2,story 1)
In story 2, April 3, the reporter summarized in another story.
Despite the outraged reaction from Democrats, it remains unclear just how firm or ambitious Republican plans are on the matter. Westerman has suggested any sales would likely be used to promote housing. And some Western Republicans say they are staunchly opposed to any public lands sales.
Hmm. But back to story 1. Note that Politico is not thought to be biased towards R’s.
The discussion, according to lawmakers interviewed by POLITICO’s E&E News, is still in the early stages and is far from guaranteed to make it into a final package. According to one top Republican, concepts under discussion include the sale of some lands around Western cities or national parks to build more housing.
*********
“It would just be in areas where you can’t get affordable housing, like for gateway communities,” said Bruce Westerman, chair of the House Natural Resources Committee, “so you could actually have people to work in the national parks, maybe around some big metropolitan areas in the West.”
***********
Montana Republican Sen. Steve Daines has already made his objections known to leaders. “Senator Daines has never and will never support the sale of public lands,” an aide said in a text message.
Another Montana Republican, Rep. Ryan Zinke, who served as Interior secretary in Trump’s first term, said he’s told House leadership public land sales are a red line for him.
“I have made clear: There are some things I won’t do,” he said. “I will never bend on the Constitution, and I won’t bend on selling our public lands.”
Indeed, Zinke in January reintroduced a bipartisan bill, H.R. 718, that would ban the sale of most public lands.
**********
The budget reconciliation process allows the majority party to secure fiscal policies by simple majority. But the GOP’s thin majorities in both chambers means leaders can’t afford to alienate members.
*****
Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska) confirmed there’s been “some discussion” of public land sales in addition to oil and gas lease sales.
“The federal government owns a lot of lands — a lot of lands,” he said. “I think it’s a great idea. We’re looking at different options for revenue raising.”Zinke did allow there could be small exceptions, like small land swaps that are in the public interest. “But the idea we are going to sell our public lands to pay for our debt, ain’t happening with my vote and I will use my influence,” he said.
The issue of public lands emerged last year in the Montana Senate race, with then-Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) casting Republican challenger Tim Sheehy as a proponent of selling off or transferring federal land to local control. Sheehy pushed back, saying he would expand public access and consider local voices. Tester lost to Sheehy.
**********
So I looked into this “pushed back”, and there is a Politifact story about what Tester said about Sheehy in a Tweet.
“But Tim Sheehy called to transfer them off, so the ultra-rich can buy them up.”
The reporter at Politifact looked into the claims.
Sheehy’s campaign website says: “I believe strongly that public lands belong in public hands. As your next U.S. Senator, I will work to preserve and expand access to our public lands, and listen to the voices of local communities when considering public lands policy. I will oppose any federal transfer or sale of our public lands. Above all, I want to keep Montana special for my children and yours, and that’s why I will always protect our right to hunt, fish, and recreate on our public lands.”
The reporter looked at the different stories (including the part that alluded to Sheehy having been on the Board of PERC)
Sheehy is no longer on the group’s board, and it’s not clear that full privatization of public lands is on the group’s agenda.
It is pretty clear to me that it’s not because you can read Brian Yablonski’s post.
Specifically, a false accusation emerged alleging that our organization advocates for selling off public land — an accusation made by a politically slanted online news outlet discredited by Politifact, and yet embraced by the Senate campaign.
But Tester’s claim was fairly silly on its face. You can be on the Board of an organization and not agree with all the positions of the organization let alone positions of people taken in the past that no longer have an affiliation with the organization. And what’s with PERC-o-phobia anyway?
Politifact rated Tester’s statement “false” but interestingly the headline was Tester “exaggerates.”
************
Here’s what Westerman, House Natural Resources chair said:
Westerman, the House Natural Resources chair, said his committee is looking into small land sales around urban centers in the West that are “landlocked” by federal lands to build affordable housing.
He also suggested the committee could unlock for sale some lands around national parks to build housing, so National Park Service employees could afford to live in the “gateway communities” near the park. “I think it’s reasonable if something’s landlocked and everybody knows we’re having trouble getting affordable housing for workers in our national parks, you’ve got cities like Las Vegas, Salt Lake City, big cities in the West that are somewhat landlocked,” the lawmaker said.
Westerman ruled out any sort of mass public land selloff that public lands supporters have feared for decades. he cautioned that the sales may not make it into the final reconciliation bill. “It would be a rounding error on the scale,” Westerman said of the size of any sales. “There’s not going to be any lots on the rim of the Grand Canyon for sale … and I’m not even sure any of that will be in the reconciliation bill we have.”
*****
My bold
*********
When asked, House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) said discussions were “not necessarily about the sale as much as opening up areas for production and exploration that were closed by Biden.”
*******
It does appear that the reporter found possibly two Senators in favor of selling federal lands, Mike Lee of Utah.
**********
Even Grist reports that this isn’t going to happen, and the media folks have moved on to other things: “weakening safeguards” and “offering up for oil and gas development” and reducing Monument sizes.
The last time conservatives ventured down the public land privatization path, it didn’t go well.
Shortly after Trump’s first inauguration in 2017, then-Congressman Jason Chaffetz, a Republican representing Utah, introduced legislation to sell off 3.3 million acres of public land in 10 Western states that he said had “been deemed to serve no purpose for taxpayers.”
Public backlash was fierce. Chaffetz pulled the bill just two weeks later, citing concerns from his constituents. The episode, while brief, largely forced the anti-federal land movement back into the shadows. The first Trump administration continued to weaken safeguards for 35 million acres of federal lands — more than any other administration in history — and offered up millions more for oil and gas development, but stopped short of trying sell off or transfer large areas of the public domain.
I hope that’s the last we hear of the “selling large swaths” accusation.
“Large swath” is relative. If a developer is able to seduce the administration to sell a thousand acres of prime winter range for housing, some conservationists (and the elk, deer and bighorn sheep) may consider that a large swath.
And some conservationists interested in microorganisms might consider a half-acre parcel a “large swath.” I’d like it if every politician and political organization would define their terms when they issue a report, but this seems unlikely.
I don’t think it’s unreasonable for reporters to remember that such proposals have been made, and see an environment where it could happen again, or for the public to take steps to ensure that again “Public backlash was fierce.”
I guess we should assume that elected representatives are more accountable for what they say than cabinet nominees who say one thing to get appointed, and then do the opposite, but Secretary of Interior Ryan Zinke was definitely not known for his ethics and credibility: https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/crew-investigations/a-guide-to-the-14-federal-investigations-into-ryan-zinke/