Senator Mike Lee has introduced a bill requiring the Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service to identify and sell between 0.5% to 0.75% (estimated 2 - 3 million) acres of federal land over the next five years. The intent is to make more land available for housing — a pressing issue in many rural Western communities.
Many of our members have asked where BlueRibbon Coalition stands. Our answer is grounded in the same principle that guides all our advocacy: defending public access to public land.
We have consistently opposed large-scale policies that convert public land into exclusive-use zones with no meaningful protections for recreation access — whether through private conservation leases, sweeping monument designations, speculative financial instruments, or rushed energy developments. In every case, our position has been based on one question: Does this protect or restrict recreation access? There is a risk that requiring the mass disposal of ~2 million acres of public lands could affect lands with recreation value and restrict recreation access.
We have also consistently supported small-scale land transfers, exchanges, sales, and disposals that convert lands with little — if any — recreation value to other uses. The Lee proposal is modeled after a law introduced and passed by Democratic lawmakers called the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act (SNPLMA), which made 2.3% of the 3 million acres managed by the Southern Nevada District Office of the Bureau of Land Management available to sell specifically for housing. We have monitored the land sales proposed through this act, and they have been overwhelmingly uncontroversial and have not resulted in impacts to recreation access.
Because the risk to recreation access is high with this proposal, we’ve been analyzing the language in this bill and speaking with our members, officials in rural western communities where housing is a top priority, and policy experts. Other organizations have used this time to push a misleading narrative. Many of the maps and articles being shared about this proposal fail to recognize the protections written into this bill that would prevent the vast majority of lands with recreation value from being considered. The proposal excludes all federal land with a designation (like national parks, national monuments, national recreation areas, wilderness, etc.). It excludes lands with valid existing rights which will protect grazing leases and mining claims. It requires prioritizing lands next to already developed areas or orphaned parcels. The consultation requirements and right of first refusal for local governments is a strong guardrail that is often left out of other mass disposal policies. Most importantly to BRC and its members, the proposal excludes lands with an existing right-of-way, which protects many of our backcountry roads and trails. It is also clear that if this proposal becomes law, the policy will move forward with extensive public input, and the maps of what land is actually available for sale will be determined through a public process.
This proposal clearly defines recreation protections to safeguard access more than any other mass disposal policy we have seen. Yet, we are committed to protecting every inch of valuable recreation access to our public lands. Many have expressed concerns that the scope of the proposal is too large, the timeline for disposal is too rushed, the hard acreage requirement for sale is too rigid, and it isn’t clear which lands will ultimately be affected until the agencies identify which lands are available to sell. We are communicating these concerns to Senator Lee’s office, and we have let them know that these concerns must be addressed for BRC to support this proposal.
We are sensitive to the concerns of our members and supporters who are trying to raise families and build businesses in small western towns where housing availability is limited and community growth and development is severely curtailed by restrictive land policies. These are the same communities that provide basic and essential services to the millions of Americans who venture into our public lands. While it is not part of BRC’s core mission to develop and promote community development programs, our recreation experiences on public lands benefit from having strong communities located in the midst of our vast swaths of public lands.
We’ve been vigilantly watching this proposal since it was introduced, and will continue to do so, along with all proposals that will impact access to the public lands we all love and enjoy.
We worked closely with UPLA to do our due diligence on this proposal, and they have shared additional information that we encourage you to review if you want to learn more. Click here to read.
