“Map and analysis by The Wilderness Society using source data from BLM, USFS, USGS, NPS, and SENR reconciliation bill text as of June 16th 2025.”Check out your own area and compare with bill text. You can see the communities on my area on the map and compare them to the green (“potentially for sale”).
I was hoping not to write about this, at least until the language in the bill was settled, but there is so much lack of clarity around it right now, I thought I’d take a stab at it. I am generally against selling federal land (trades are better IMHO), and at least BLM has the authority to dispose of land anyway under FLPMA, but the House didn’t pass the sales section, so to me, it passing both houses still seems unlikely.
Let’s look past the more apocalyptic framings and start from a rational wonkish basis.
What is the problem as stated by proponents? Are there alternative ways to solve the problem?
Some towns and cities are surrounded by federal land and are growing in population. So the federal land could be used potentially for housing, especially for building lower cost housing. Now I’m sure that there is a think-tank somewhere that has analyzed leasing versus selling. I suppose leasing would run into ongoing administrative costs, plus maybe legal liability? But if you can permit a resort or a camp, why not housing?
Like I said about the Public Lands Rule, if you plan to change laws or rules to do things the agencies can already do, it would be helpful to have a rationale. Sadly, political actors don’t seem to need rationales. Maybe in a backroom somewhere a Senate legislative staff person is asking these questions and getting answers, but we aren’t (similar to the Public Lands Rule, again).
But what happens when this occurs (they already have tools to do this) is that people lose trust in that actually being the rationale and wonder if it’s really something else. It could be that Senator Lee simply has a bug in his bonnet about federal lands due to the long history of his state and this is the current bug-effluence? Or is there something deeper.. millions of acres will be sold for other purposes and somehow when the other purposes are revealed there won’t be litigation?
Anyway, if they were policy folks and not pols, there would be problem framing and various options with pros and cons to solve the identified problem.
So here we are. I think the Wilderness Society maps and numbers are questionable based on a need for housing because… I’m not sure the acres are crosswalked with proximity to communities which seems to be a requirement. Check out your own area. I can safely say there are no communities in proximity to many of the acres shown green in the area I know best.
Here’s the current language:
the extent to which the development of the tract of Bureau of Land Management land or National Forest System
” land would address local housing needs including housing supply and affordability) or any associated infrastructure to support
local housing needs.”
and priorities:
(A) are nominated by States or units of local governments;
(B) are adjacent to existing developed areas;
(C) have access to existing infrastructure;
(D) are suitable for residential housing
Here’s what I like about it:
1. If sales are going to happen, which they do, have an open process to nominate parcels (not smoke-filled rooms), everyone gets a chance
It’s a bit of a social justice issue for me. For example, it appeared that powerful political figures (Senator Harry Reid) may have existed in Nevada who designed not only sales but exactly where the money would go and got it passed in Congress (and why did money from the sales go to Lake Tahoe, which doesn’t seem close to Las Vegas?). Is that fair to communities without powerful politicians?
2. Local governments and States do the nominating (no extra work for feds)
What I don’t like about it:
1.Targets (why?) (the agencies have enough to do, with fewer employees and smaller budgets)
2.Understanding why selling is better than leasing or permitting, or why this bill is needed instead of other ways of tweaking existing authorities.
***************************
There’s an interesting article in the Cowboy State Daily about the validity of the Wilderness Society map (caution, I think the checkerboard idea is gone from the current text, linked above, at least I searched on the word and couldn’t find it).
For example, the map shows nearly all of the Bridger-Teton National Forest could potentially be sold, as well as a huge chunk of the Bighorn Mountain Range in northern Wyoming.
In my experience, there are many acres in both areas that do not fit the bill’s requirement of “addressing local housing needs.” I think it would be much more difficult to map. First you’d have to identify communities by some density or other cut-off (maybe the existence of a post office?). Then figure out if they have an affordability problem. Then say take some amount say 50 acres? for each of these, if there happened to be NFS or BLM land “adjacent to developed areas.” We’d have to figure out how to define “developed areas” and maybe “adjacent” although that seems pretty clear. That’s how I’d do it, anyway.
Many groups have come out against what’s in the bill, or the general idea, including hunting groups, I think based on the generic idea of sales. Hopefully people aren’t hunting “adjacent to existing developed areas.” I went down a side trail on this and found that 500 feet from homes is a general shooting rule. But across the country these distances vary greatly.
So it appears that a) the House rejected this. 2) The Senate is still working on language, 3) TWS posted a map which doesn’t IMHO address the language in any substantive way, 4) people react strongly to the map.
Like I said, I am not a fan of the current bill for my wonk-ish reasons. But I also think there’s something weird about how people believe.. maps.. perhaps more than words. I also get the “camel’s nose under the tent” view. But given that, could we still go back to “what is the problem?” and “what are potential solutions?”
Your last two questions are the most important ones.
The lumber mill in Seeley Lake, MT closed. Lack of housing for employees was cited. The town is hemmed in by various public lands including Lolo NF. Seeley is depressed now, a tourist/worker town, now missing the major employer. What’s aggravating is that Montana is presently removed from the bill.
I also take issue with the percentage requirement, which seems both vague and arbitrary. It could prove to be too lofty. If the bill is to be arbitrary about acreage, I feel a lower target might be more realistic.
The many groups opposing this are indeed taking liberties with their maps and scare tactics. I’m not motivated by the BS.
I understood the limitation on Seeley Lake housing is not land but lack of sewage treatment.
Jon is 100% correct, and anyone can do some basic on-line searchers to confirm the fact that the “housing problem” in Seeley Lake is not tied to a lack of land, but the lack of sewage treatment.
And the residents of Seeley Lake, in February 2021, rejected bonds that would’ve put a sewer project in motion.
And before that, in 2018, a Seeley Lake resident sued to stop the Seeley Lake Sewer District from moving forward with a sewer project planned for the small community. I believe that lawsuit was not only successful in stopping the planned Seeley Lake sewer project, but the it also cost the community over $9 million in grants money that was secured for the sewer project.
But sure, let’s sell off the Lolo National Forest.
After I posted this, I receive an interesting clarification about Committees jurisdictions
“The caveat about “only land created out of the public domain” has to do with committee jurisdictions. Senate Agriculture Committee has jurisdiction over all public lands that were at one time in private ownership–e.g., lands purchased under the Weeks Act. Senate E&NR only has jurisdiction over the lands reserved for federal agencies from the public domain. Any bill drafted that covered all NF land has to go through BOTH committees. So Sen Lee is avoiding that jurisdictional battle.
*****
Note: The TWS map shows this accurately.
Here’s the current sales authority for the FLPMA agencies:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/43/1713
The new language departs from this current authority by
o requiring a minimum number of acres to be offered for sale, though over what time period is unclear to me (under FLPMA there is no general sales *requirement*)
o largely divorcing the sales process from existing land management plans (under FLPMA, only lands the agencies have identified for sale in LRMPs may be sold – the new language would merely require the relevant agency to disclose the parcel’s “planning status”)
o walking back the requirement that federal land be sold for fair market value (this is mandatory under FLPMA – the new language would only require that the disposal method – sale or otherwise – be “*designed to* secure not less than fair market value” of the tract (my emphasis).
There may other significant differences, but those are the ones that jumped out at me. I agree that viewing this issue through the lens of lurid green maps isn’t enlightening, and I imagine that the agencies would end up running out of easily sellable tracts very quickly if the new language makes it into law. But the new language would indeed depart from FLPMA in at least a few significant respects.
Thanks Rich! Not many of us can keep up with FLPMA land sales provisions. I think that requiring it to be in an RMP might be difficult because RMPs, like LMP’s seem unable to keep up with current needs as much as we would like. Seems like many housing crunches have occurred in the last 10 years.
One question I have is what legal weight does the use of the word “priorities” have? If a parcel is sold that is not adjacent to local developed areas is it legal to nominate and sell it? If a parcel is ten miles away from local infrastructure is okay for it to be sold as the purchaser may say they will use solar energy? It seems like the word “priority” isn’t an edict.
From a former hunter’s perspective, one of the big potential issues with this bill is the potential selling and development of important deer and elk winter range.
I have similar questions about enforceability. All those words are under the heading of “priority considerations,” with no apparent recourse for anyone if the agency ignores them after considering. And why couldn’t the language be stretched to allow some billionaire campaign donor to buy some remote Wyoming land because it is addressing their “local housing needs.”
Exactly this. It seems incredibly naive to think tracts of land that would then back up to endless public lands will be sold to build affordable housing in this economic and political climate without the strictest of sideboards to prevent otherwise. Housing will be built for profit and McMansions are where the money is at.
Remanding most lands in the public domain to the Indigenous people from whom it was seized can’t happen soon enough.
That’s not what’s in the bill, but ..OK.
Apparently, what is also in the bill is the idea of requiring a substantial bond before you can file a lawsuit against the Federal Government. Judges would also be directed to deem the ability to pay irrelevant. Justice will need to be bought, if this bill passes.
Can you point to that part of the bill, it is very long.. and not sure that’s the purview of Energy and Natural Resources.
It was reported on ‘Alt Nat Parks’, that it might take a 50K bond for a court to even hear the case. While some may trumpet this as a victory against ‘frivolous’ lawsuits, there will also be those single plaintiffs, who clearly are impacted by government actions, and are unable to come up with a ‘down payment’ for justice.
Kurn, generally if something is reported (especially by an interest group) we try to link to the original source or story at least, and something like a draft of a bill, point to where in the bill it’s located. Because, in my experience, people can say many things with varying degrees of accuracy.
This might be about §70302, which applies to TROs and injunctions: “No court of the United States may use appropriated funds to enforce a contempt citation for failure to comply with an injunction or temporary restraining order if no security was given when the injunction or order was issued pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c), whether issued prior to, on, or subsequent to the date of enactment of this section.” Injunctions could not be enforced without a security, but I don’t find anything on a minimum security needed (of like $50,000).
An update from Alt National Parks: That idea has been scrubbed from the reconciliation bill by the Senate Parliamentarian.
I suspect that many more ‘ideological’ part of the reconciliation bill will be/have been removed, under the rules of reconciliation.
This 2024 Congressional Research Service report https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R48079 rounds up all existing BLM disposal authorities- sale, exchanges, leasing, regionally specific disposal authorities ( Southern Nevada). These provisions authorize the type of disposal the proposed legislation purports to provide — but with FLPMA and other procedural safeguards. Could these and should these processes be more efficient — yes. It should not take the average 10 years to do a FLPMA exchange. But eliminating public comment, putting up mandatory acreage amounts for sale, setting unrealistic timetables of 1-3 months and allowing for the sale for less than the FLPMA fair market value is not the way to do it. It invites corrupt behavior which has always been a risk over the decades when it comes to disposing of federal lands and minerals— which the existing safeguards were enacted to address.
Thanks, Rebecca!