BlueRibbon Coalition evaluates and comments on the recent public outcry regarding the BLM land transfers in the latest reconciliation bill. In this article we will:
- Address misinformation regarding the bill’s contents
- Clarify what the bill actually says
- Convey on-the-ground analysis
- Relay what local agencies say
- Reaffirm our commitment and stewardship to keep public lands open for recreation
We regularly engage with proposals that change ownership of public lands because these proposals can result in permanent changes that could result in loss of access. When we see proposals to transfer, trade, or sell public lands, we follow a few important principles to ensure that these proposals don’t permanently reduce recreation access.
Yesterday the House of Representatives removed two provisions from a budget reconciliation bill that would have authorized the sale of public lands in Utah and Nevada. While this means the proposal is likely dead for now, we do believe that some of these transfers are likely to be introduced in the future through various other processes or legislative vehicles.
With the recent public uproar and advocacy campaigns from multiple organizations opposing this bill, we’ve been doing our due diligence to understand what it actually means for our members. We also understand that not saying anything, is saying something. Thus, we wanted to set the record straight on how we viewed these proposals in case they are introduced again down the road.
Our Track Record on Public Land Transfers
Recently we opposed the SEC’s proposed rule to create Natural Asset Companies, which would be designed to securitize and sell the ecosystem services of vacant land into a $4 quadrillion dollar wall street land grab. We also opposed the BLM conservation leasing rule, which proposed to create a new leasing program with no legal basis to privatize BLM lands to anti-access organizations.
We opposed the proposal to exchange state trust lands out of the Bears Ears National Monument. We were part of the effort to prevent the sale of portions of Sand Mountain in Hurricane. We’ve engaged with proposals in states like Wyoming and Oregon to protect public access in cases where wealthy landowners sell their land to the federal government through the Land Water Conservation Fund.
We also see many land transfer proposals that we choose to ignore. Many of these occur in places like Nevada where the Southern Nevada Policy Land Management Act (created by the late Senator Harry Reid) has created disposal corridors that allow for fast track land sales of landlocked parcels located within the suburbs of Las Vegas. Often the proceeds from these sales go to support recreation amenities and public infrastructure.
The Land Transfer in the Current Reconciliation Bill
Representative Celeste Maloy and Representative Mark Amodei introduced an amendment to the budget reconciliation bill in Congress that would make several hundred thousand acres of public land available for sale to local governments. About 11,000 acres of these lands are in Utah, and the rest are in Nevada. We have had a lot of public land users and supporters raise concerns to us about this bill. Ultimately, these provisions were stripped out of the bill.
As with the previously discussed examples above, we always try to base our position on land transfers based on careful scrutiny of the actual policy proposals. This is even more important with the Maloy/Amodei proposal, because there has been a firestorm of misinformation about these proposals. We have seen a broad range of groups that claim to be public lands advocates mount aggressive opposition to these proposals simply because they propose to “sell off public lands.”
When we evaluate these proposals there are two things we look at:
1. How will the proposal affect recreation access?
2. Is the proposal consistent with the multiple-use mandate that governs most federal public land?
This means we often will generally oppose most transfers, because they result in permanent change of ownership, and in some cases they transfer lands to private owners who will permanently restrict access to the public and limit the use of the land to a single use.
The Western Solar Plan is a good example of a plan we opposed, because it would have fast tracked over 30 million acres of public land for private transfer to solar companies. This plan would restrict all recreation access to the lands being transferred. The lands would be restricted to the single use of producing solar power.
We have been able to ground-truth the parcels that are proposed for sale in Utah, but we didn’t have the chance to view the Nevada parcels. We have also had the chance to connect with Utah officials in Washington County that requested the transfer of these parcels. For this reason we can provide our analysis of these parcels. We still need more information before we would take a fully informed public position on the Nevada parcels.
Utah Portion of the Proposals
The Utah portion of this proposal includes several parcels that total 11,000 acres of public land that will be affected. These parcels, if sold, would be conveyed to the county government, the City of St. George, or the Washington County Water Conservancy District. This means the conveyance of these lands are still staying within public control by public agencies that would put them to use for specific public purposes. Here are the primary intended uses for the proposed parcels:
Dispersed Camping
One of the parcels that Washington County would like to acquire is used for free, primitive dispersed camping. It is one of the only areas near Zion National Park where it’s allowed. Thus, it is currently a very popular camping location. For years the BLM hasn’t had the resources to enforce the camping regulations here, so they are proposing to close the dispersed camping in this area and require everyone to camp in hardened, reservation-based, fee-based, developed campgrounds.
The county wants to acquire this land, because their Sheriff’s department does have the resources to manage these camping areas. They have been enforcing camping regulations since new ordinances were adopted to address camping impacts in 2021.
This same parcel will also include a portion of a paved bike path that the county wants to build there. Again, this is a transfer that would have improved recreation. Because the amendment to transfer this land was not passed, it is likely that these sites will now be closed and the construction of the bike path will be subject to federal regulatory delays.
Utility Corridors
When you look at the maps, 4,084 acres are nothing more than Washington County wanting to acquire the utility corridors that run alongside several miles of highways and roads. These can be used for water pipelines, gas pipelines, fiber optics, and other utilities.
One of these parcels is specifically for the purpose of constructing a paved, multi-use bike/walking path along SR9 – the major highway to access Zion National Park (see Parcel 3 in map above). A broad coalition of recreation groups and local governments have been working to make this bike path a reality, and conveying the land to the county would make it easier to build this path. It makes sense that a county would want to acquire the land in these corridors to eliminate the need to coordinate with the federal government on the county’s efforts to provide critical utility infrastructure and recreation amenities for the residents of Washington County.
In this case, this transfer of land actually improves recreation for the public.
Hydrological Infrastructure
The largest parcel in the proposal is southeast of Sand Mountain, and it is being requested by the Washington County Water Conservancy for a future water storage project that would include a reservoir and renewable pumped restorage hydropower. It would be at least 20 years before the Conservancy would build this, but if they could acquire it now through a legislative transfer, it would save money for Washington County taxpayers.
When Western communities build large public works to serve the basic needs of their citizens, they often use a law from 1926 called the Recreation and Public Purposes Act, which is a federal law that allows local and state governments to apply to lease federal lands to build the infrastructure. The RPPA contemplates that the title to most leased lands will one day be conveyed to the local governments, so that the BLM doesn’t have to continue managing these lands. These lands are identified for disposal through the extensive public process of creating a Resource Management Plan. The land conveyance comes with a reversion clause that requires the local government to transfer title back to the federal government if they ever use the land for anything other than the purpose identified in the original lease. This law is used all the time by local governments in the West and has been a permanent fixture of how public lands get managed. Almost all reservoirs are developed and constructed through this process.
The simplest and fastest way to complete as sale of lands identified for disposal through the RPPA is through an act of Congress. It is unremarkable that members of Congress bundle these conveyances in to legislative packages that are likely to pass.
The Water Conservancy is asking for one parcel to be transferred near Quail Creek Reservoir that they have been paying a lease on for 20 years. They’ve built permanent water treatment facilities on the parcel and public recreation trails. They simply want to complete the RPPA process that has been ongoing for over 20 years by finally requesting transfer of title. They plan to continue managing the parcel as it has been managed for the last 20 years. Recreation will not be affected by this.
They have also recently completed a RPPA application for the land that will be used for the Chief Toquer Reservoir. After decades of planning and abundant public involvement, this reservoir is already under construction using funds that were part of President Biden’s Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill. The request to convey the land that will be used for the reservoir is a routine policy that would streamline government management of this public land. Recreation will be improved and enhanced by this conveyance.
The Water Conservancy is also requesting other smaller conveyances for water tanks smaller storage facilities, and pipelines (See parcels 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, & 22 above). It is routine for BLM to choose to dispose of these kinds of parcels, since they have no special expertise to manage and maintain hydrological infrastructure, wheras the Water Conservancy has the expertise and the financial tax base to manage these systems. It is absolutely absurd that a national campaign has been waged to prevent these government agencies from coordinating together to provide critical water resources in one of the driest counties in the country.
While it would have been easier for everyone, cheaper for taxpayers, and better for recreation users for these conveyances to be completed in a timely package through an act of Congress, they will likely still be transferred in the future — hopefully sooner than later.
Affordable Housing
This was the most controversial part of this proposal, and on the Utah side there are only a few small parcels that could conceivably be used for this. The parcel on the mesa above Rockville is probably the parcel that could most likely be used for housing. County officials said their plans were to potentially use this as an area for overflow parking and shuttle stop for those going to Zion National Park. They said affordable housing would be a possibility, but because the land would have to be purchased at fair market value, it would be difficult to get support from taxpayers to buy this land at such a steep price.
Of all the parcels that likely won’t be reintroduced down the road, it is this one, since it borders the National Park. It is currently a landlocked parcel that provides limited use for recreation. Its primary recreation use seems to be to serve as a private hiking preserve for those who own the mansions on the East, which are built on $1 million dollar lots that border the National Park.
Full Analysis of Each Parcel
We worked with our friends at Utah Public Lands Alliance to review each of the parcels proposed for disposal through this Amendment in Utah. If you would like to review the comprehensive list, you can do that here: https://utahpla.com/unmasking-the-controversy-whats-really-in-the-blm-land-transfer-bill/
UPLA is currently running a fundraising drive where they are doubling all donations made to support our mission, as we work together to keep public lands open. You can support our work here:
Nevada Portion of the Proposals
Our experience with land transfers in Nevada, is that they have different laws, such as the aforementioned SNLPMA, that govern land disposals that are written specifically for the state. The acreage amounts in the Nevada portion were much larger, and there wasn’t always a readily obvious reason for why specific parcels were included. We have been in contact with Representative Amodei’s office to see if we can get our questions answered.
We understand that many of these parcels are included in land transfer bills that have been introduced by Nevada’s Democratic Senators, so we intend to do similar due diligence into these parcels if these other proposals get traction. Since we don’t have that information at the moment, we can only say that the Nevada portion of this bill appeared to be a mixed bag where there are some parcels that could affect recreation access and some where cases can be made that a transfer to a local government would not be controversial.
BRC’s Position
After ground-truthing the parcels in the Utah portion of this proposal, we support most of the transfers. We have a great working relationship with the Water Conservancy officials and the elected leaders in Washington County, and we believe they are making routine reasonable requests that will help them manage the needs of their citizens.
On the balance, we believe recreation access will be improved by these transfers. If you disagree with this, we have to assume it is because you don’t have on-the-ground knowledge of the parcels under consideration. If you truly believe transferring these parcels will restrict recreation, hunting, or fishing, we want to hear from you and learn why you believe that. Maybe we missed something.
These public lands will still be managed by public agencies, but they will be managed by agencies that have the proper expertise and financial resources to manage these parcels for their intended uses. We have no reason to believe that recreation access will be seriously affected by these transfers. Whether this conveyance happens through a budget reconciliation bill, a future unanimous consent action, or some other public lands package, these conveyances should happen. We wouldn’t be surprised to see them pass through some less controversial future package.
It was disappointing to see how quickly the public was mobilized to oppose the transfers in Utah when groups opposing the effort shared no verifiable information of what was actually being proposed. With that said, if we had verifiable proof that these parcels would be used in some secret plan to sell these lands to some other interest, we would have opposed them, like we have in the past with other transfer and privatization schemes.
We recognize that the information surrounding the specific parcels in Nevada was lacking, and we agree that in the absence of verifiable information about those parcels that removing this amendment from the reconciliation bill will give the public more time to review those proposed transfers. Had we had full information sooner, we would have taken a more active role in either supporting or opposing this amendment.
We don’t think that this land transfer would result in new precedents, and we could envision scenarios where members of Congress from either party would use budget reconciliation to complete routine land transfers in their home states.. We have analyzed countless land conveyances, transfers, and disposals, and every one is different and complicated in its own way.
BRC remains committed to ensuring public lands serve the public, balancing recreation with community needs.
We are currently reviewing additional land transfer proposals that everyone else is ignoring that are currently open for public comment. If you like this kind of analysis into these issues, consider subscribing to our newsletter or becoming a member so we can continue this type of ground-truthing on your behalf.
