Proposed sale of public lands panned

While Wyomingites fight proposal, U.S. senators, representative remain in favor

Citizens of the Big Horn Basin voiced their opposition to the sale of public lands at Rep. Harriet Hageman’s, R-Wyo., town hall meeting in the Greybull High School auditorium on Tuesday, June 17. 

Questions, handwritten and submitted by the audience, pressed the representative: “Do you support the sale of our public land?” “Will there be public input prior to listing land for sale?” “Will you vote for the sale of public lands when it comes back to the House?” Often throughout her presentation, Hageman was interrupted by shouts of protest.

“There’s just a massive amount of misinformation that is being spread out there,” Hageman said. 

Hageman claimed that a map released by the Wilderness Society, which shows nearly 15 million acres of land including large tracts in the Big Horn Basin and Bighorn National Forest that could potentially be put up for sale, was inaccurate. In an interview with Cowboy State Daily, the Wilderness Society stood by its depiction as consistent with how the bill reads. 

Various organizations have suggested the total could amount to between 2.2 million and 3.3 million acres sold across 11 Western states.

DISPOSAL

Wyoming State Senate Joint Resolution 0002, which would have demanded the release of federal lands to the state, excluding Yellowstone National Park, failed earlier this year after public outcry. 

The U.S. House also attempted to dispose of federal land this session, initially proposing the sale of around 500,000 acres of public lands in Nevada and Utah in their reconciliation bill, part of the “One Big Beautiful Bill” Act. Following concerted efforts by Rep. Ryan Zinke, R-Mont., it was dropped. Hageman, however, initially voted in favor of the measure. 

The House reconciliation bill passed on May 22, and Hageman reported Tuesday that she was excited about where the “One Big Beautiful Bill” Act stood. 

Now the proposal to sell federal public lands comes from the U.S. Senate, with Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, introducing a provision that would mandate the sale of BLM and Forest Service land in Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington or Wyoming. 

The measure, a part of the reconciliation bill which would be become part of the “One Big Beautiful Bill” Act if passed, outlines that a minimum of 0.5% and not more than 0.75% of both BLM and Forest Service land in the aforementioned states be selected for disposal by the Secretary of the Interior and Secretary of Agriculture. Federally protected land, such as national parks, is excluded. 

The aim is to create opportunities for affordable housing. 

Hageman gave an example of large, undeveloped, federally-owned lots in Las Vegas, surrounded by urban neighborhoods. She suggested that the sale of public lands close to city centers could allow the development of affordable housing and reduce urban sprawl. 

“BLM really wasn’t created to manage urban resources,” Hageman said. “But as our communities and our cities and towns have grown, they have come to where they actually subsumed BLM lands. You might even have that in Greybull.”

Hageman claimed that payment in lieu of taxes are not enough to support federal lands. Sen. Lee’s proposal would preserve existing leasing rights and require a submission regarding the suitability of the land for development before its sale. 

Some members of the audience voiced their disagreement throughout her responses, shouting, “We’re not Las Vegas!” and “Keep Wyoming out!”

Reportedly, Hageman spoke with the head of BLM in Buffalo, who had ideas on what tracts may be swapped for private lands to consolidate BLM areas. 

Many VIEWs

“This is a pivotal piece of legislation that could change the landscape, maybe not in my lifetime, but it could change the landscape of the western United States,” Lovell Mayor Tom Newman said. 

While public land can currently be sold, the process is long and the review is thorough. 

“[The proposal] sets a precedent where public land could easily or more easily be sold to private entities or businesses, which makes me nervous,” Newman said.

Newman expressed concerns with the type of land that could become available for sale in Big Horn County with the presented wording of the bill – including large tracts in Bighorn National Forest unsuitable for affordable housing. While he said he believed the quest to provide more housing was a noble endeavor, he found the proposal did not make sense for that matter. 

“I worry, between grazing lands, mining and those kinds of things; that’s what we rely on in this area … it may not happen immediately, but over years or decades, that would cause some significant financial hardship to this area if those things are bought up by individuals,” Newman said.

As of Monday, 85 Wyoming businesses had written Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., opposing the measure, claiming the state’s tourism economy will be detrimentally impacted by the loss of public land. 

“We all recognize that management of our public lands is not perfect. But transferring these lands to the state or selling them off is not the answer. As the Code of the West states, ‘some things are not for sale,’” the letter reads. 

Various outfitters in Cody and Sheridan were among the businesses that signed in support.

Local BLM and Forest Service officials were unable to comment on pending legislation. 

“I don’t know what this bill will look like when it comes to the House,” Hageman said in Greybull last week. “I will tell you what I think is very clear, is we have to be looking at the specific circumstances to determine the best way that we manage all our federal resources... I think we have to continue to be willing to evaluate what is in the best interest of our country.”

Wyoming’s senators showed cautious support of the measure. 

Sen. Cynthia Lummis, R-Wyo., said in a statement issued by her communications office last week that while she was still reviewing Sen. Lee’s proposal, federal ownership of nearly half of all Western land creates management challenges.  

“The federal government doesn’t need to perpetually own every piece of land it currently holds, and we must have honest conversations about smart, strategic land management that serves our communities while protecting our natural treasures,” her statement reads.   

Sen. Barrasso did not reply to a request for comment before deadline, but an email response to a constituent expressing concern over Sen. Lee’s bill recently read: “I support federal land sales when they serve the interests of states, local communities and the public.”

As proposed, the bill suggests state or local governments may be given the right of first refusal on the sale of public lands. In a Western Governor’s Association meeting in Santa Fe on Monday, Wyoming Governor Mark Gordan stated that some Wyoming cities are surrounded by public land and trying to grow. 

“… just having a more sensible way of looking at this makes sense,” Gordan said in regards to the proposal. “But again, those kinds of decisions should be made on a local level with a very robust process that does not say, ‘We’re going to wholesale get rid of our public lands’, but we’re going to look at certain places and say adjustments that we can make just make better sense than what we have today.”  

Newman pointed out that Montana was one of the major Western states left out of this measure, thanks in large part to their representatives’ efforts. 

“I was a little bothered when Sen. Barrasso said, ‘I support it;’ you’re there to support what we want, not what you want,” Newman said. 

On Tuesday, Sen. Lee appeared to back down in face of public opposition, claiming that Forest Service land would be removed from his proposal. 

Senate Republicans previously instated a self-imposed deadline of July 4 to pass their version of the bill, which would then return to the House.