USFS and BLM lands available for sale in the Senate Reconciliation Bill

[stusic]

 

[mcgaskins]

From COHVCO today:
(https://cohvco.clubexpress.com/cont...320&emtid=284340270949&mtid=426443540584&ht=0)

Federal Land Sales Information Clarification
Outline of specific points on proposals that are altering management of public lands
6/17/25

1. Significant amounts of inaccurate information is circulating about previous House efforts and current Senate efforts to draft the Big Beautiful Bill by groups opposed to the use of fossil fuels or failing to recognize other values being advanced like affordable housing. Some of these groups have stated that almost every acre of public land in the west could be sold with no notice. This is simply incorrect despite these rumors being all over the internet at this point.
2. The Organizations believe it is important to focus on current Senate energy and natural resources committee recommendation released on June 11, 2025.It is not productive to address rumors or leaks. There is a link to this document in the comments section.
3. There are many good provisions in the Proposal that will improve all forms of recreation on public lands.
4. §1301(a) of the Proposal specifically excludes the sale of lands within15 different designated areas from any sales, such as National Parks or National Recreation areas. There is no discussion of selling Yellowstone for coal mining or making the Grand Canyon National Park condos.
5. §301 (b) of the Proposal authorizes the sale of between .5% and .75% of remaining lands to support affordable housing in communities across the west. The Committee recommendation provides numerous specific restrictions on how the funds can be used. Many of the leasing provisions specifically direct that the proceeds of the lease must be used to address the maintenance backlog on federal public lands.
6. §301(c)(3) of the Proposal further prioritizes lands that are isolated and inefficient to manage, adjacent to highly developed areas that have good access to existing infrastructure or area nominated by state or local governments.
7. §301(g)(3) of the Proposal specifically states that if the proposal is not used in accordance with the Proposal requirements the owner is subject to legal action.
8. Many sites still must go through NEPA review prior to sale. Other sites have undergone NEPA review previously and were found suitable to sell.
9. The Proposal requires identification of areas suitable for oil and gas leasing and mineral extraction on public lands. This is not a sale but is rather an availability to lease for oil and gas exploration. This does not mean any acres of lands will be drilled for anything.
10. Many of these parcels have been requested to be acquired by local communities to expand water reservoirs, airports and schools or actually expand recreational access to public lands after existing infrastructure was closed.
11. Other parcels have been leased to local communities for many years and these communities are asking for the reversionary interests required under Recreation and Public Purposes Act of 1908 be released. Many of these parcels are heavily developed and simply could not be used for wildlife or recreation anymore as they are industrial parks or office complexes that have been surrounded by development on public lands.
12. The Organizations support planned development to provide affordable housing in communities across the west.
13. The Organizations also supports sale of public lands to communities to support basic necessities for residents in the community such as water and other infrastructure.
14. The Organizations support acquisition of federal public lands by local land managers to expand recreational access.

Oxymoron: a combination of contradictory or incongruous words

 

[DanInDenver]

The bill is massive and a tough read. This link to the summary can help in finding specific sections and the summary highlights what's in the actual bill text. The actual text and its interpretation should be the focus and your source for what's been written and voted on so far.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/1

For Oil and Gas drilling I would read what the industry thinks of the bill. Also the market price and where the market is going will dictate what industry pursues.

Highlights of the House-passed package that advance American oil and natural gas production include:

“Big, Beautiful Bill” Prioritizes Oil, Natural Gas in the West

DENVER – Following passage of the budget reconciliation bill today in the U.S. House of Representatives, Western Energy Alliance applauded several provisions prioritizing oil and natural gas production.

www.westernenergyalliance.org

• Commingling: Enabling commingling of production is one of the quickest ways to increase production onshore. Many projects in the West have been held up for years by the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) failure to approve the commingling of federal and nonfederal oil and natural gas in consolidated projects, even though today’s metering equipment enables accurate measurement for royalty calculations. With the bill, producers can consolidate facilities, thereby reducing the number of well pads and impact on the land while still accurately calculating federal royalties.
• Non-Federal Well Permitting: Removing the need for a federal permit for wells on nonfederal lands is perhaps equally important for quickly enabling more production. With two- to three-mile laterals, horizontal wellbores may touch small pockets of federal minerals underground. By reducing the need for a federal permit when only a small amount of federal minerals is traversed, it frees BLM from extra paperwork while still ensuring the American taxpayer receives the revenue. This provision is particularly necessary in North Dakota, where access to the energy that the state and private citizens own is often blocked for years by unnecessary federal process.
• National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA): Completing NEPA analysis in a reasonable amount of time by letting companies pay for their NEPA documents. The bill sensibly relieves the government of the cost and time of the analysis, while still enabling government oversight. Removing the ability of unaccountable groups to sue clears one of the largest impediments to getting projects done in a timely manner.
• Protest Fees: Requiring obstructionist groups to pay a fee when they protest leases would finally hold them responsible for a tiny fraction of the billions of dollars of economic activity they stop with their constant protests and litigation. It is appropriate and equitable for these otherwise unaccountable groups to pay for the burden they place on the government and for constantly preventing projects that create jobs and federal revenue.
• Permitting: Making the federal government more efficient, such as by establishing a permit-by-rule system. By enabling the timely approval of routine permits that meet stringent requirements, BLM could spend less time pushing redundant paperwork and more time actively managing the land. Likewise, setting a four-year term for drilling permits eliminates the need for BLM to revisit them after two years, a needless red tape exercise.
• Leasing: Clarifying quarterly lease sales prevents future administrations from issuing a ban on leasing, as President Biden did by unlawful decree as well as by bureaucratic inertia. Reinstating noncompetitive leasing provides a low-cost entry for small companies exploring in areas not considered highly prospective today. Like the Bakken and Permian in the 2000s, today’s low-value, low-potential area could be the next big find. The Permian later experienced a record high lease sale, netting nearly $1 billion in 2018.

 

[DanInDenver]

Coal gets a boost as well especially in the west.
Part 4--Coal

(Sec. 80141) This section directs Interior to publish an environmental review, hold certain coal lease sales, and issue the leases within 90 days for any pending lease applications as well as within 90 days of submission for new applications.

Interior must also make available for lease known recoverable coal resources of at least 4 million additional acres on certain federal land in western states.

Letter To The Editor: Big Beautiful Bill Will Be Great For Wyoming's Coal Industry

Dear editor: When signed by President Trump (hopefully this summer), the Big Beautiful Bill will indeed be a game changer for Wyoming's coal industry.

cowboystatedaily.com

 

[Hulk]

COHVCO and Blue Ribbon conveniently ignore the parts of the sell-off that are actually true and not great:
1. If passed, the government is REQUIRED to sell off public lands.
2. There is no requirement for public comment on the sell-off of each parcel. This is worse than the trail closure process we've been dealing with for the last several years.

And defending the bill by saying "There is no discussion of selling Yellowstone for coal mining or making the Grand Canyon National Park condos" is disingenuous — we aren't stupid. Everyone gets that National Parks are not on the chopping block.

Once public land is sold, it ain't coming back. I'm seeing comments all over the place by people from Europe who say things like, "We don't have public lands like you do in the U.S. You should never sell them."

I recognize that there are lands adjacent to small rural towns that make sense to sell to allow the town to expand, provide housing, etc. That's legitimate. But there is no provisions in the bill to make sure the land doesn't get sold to some rich dude who will build a single house on a giant chunk of land.

 

[Cruisertrash]

There are absolutely no guardrails or guarantees in the entire thing except vague gesturing.

We currently own the land. Yes you. And me too. It’s ours. The people we pay to steward our land are going to sell it and put the money in their pocket with zero return to us besides disingenuous posturing, “something something housing”. And if they do build a single house on any of the land, you can be assured the people getting those contracts are going to make a shitload of money. And then they get to sell our own land back to us at a markup. And this opens Pandora’s box. As with most things gubment, they test our appetite first. And that doesn’t even cover the fact that we can no longer use the land for recreation as we have.

The nuance isn’t even worth reading. Zero firm guardrails. Bait and switch. Bunch of people get rich - hint: not you or me - and then they sell our own land back to us. Nah. No thanks.

For BRC to publish their flimsy statement is laughable. We don’t have Waffle House here bro, go back to wherever you came from.

 

[stusic]

For BRC to publish their flimsy statement is laughable. We don’t have Waffle House here bro, go back to wherever you came from.

Don't bring Waffle House into this. And there's like 5 in the area.

 

[Burt88]

The proposal itself is the line we can't cross. Any mumbling bumbling idiot knows the actual language inside the bill will be interpreted in various ways and be rewritten over and over for who stands to gain the most. If this goes through we'll be fighting ever increasing land sales until it's all gone over the next 50 years. It's gotta stop right here.

We don't even need this bill because there's already processes that allow case by case land exchanges for necessary public benefit that require public input. Why do we even need to entertain the idea of outright selling 3 million acres with no replacement of lost public land?

And the idea that any vacant land is underutilized just piss me off outright because fugging nature uses it. Nature doesn't even seem to be part of the whole conversation. Are we brainwashed into thinking that every square inch of everything in existence needs to have some monetary value? I'm not brainwashed! Roosevelt set aside these public lands in part to preserve nature. So let's fugging preserve it! Unaffordable housing isn't a land problem anyhow, it's a problem that we've allowed to fester through pro business economic policy that exploits more than it provides.

 

[Cruisertrash]

The proposal itself is the line we can't cross.

Hence my Pandora’s box statement…

Nature doesn't even seem to be part of the whole conversation. Are we brainwashed into thinking that every square inch of everything in existence needs to have some monetary value?

See Ronnie Reagan’s comment on trees: “once you’ve seen one, you’ve seen them all.” Corporate balance sheets have never taken into account environmental services that naturally happen for free - or rather they have never accounted for removing from the land its ability to provide those services. …and just letting the natural environment be as it is is inherently valuable in its own more philosophical, less tangible, way. None of us would be out in the wilderness in our trucks if that weren’t the case.

 

[Notyourmomslx450]

View: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DLIZ5A4pu-Y/?igsh=bzZoeDA2ZjVveHNp

 

[Notyourmomslx450]

Just saw this as well


View: https://www.instagram.com/p/DLDWDpZOOz2/?img_index=4&igsh=eXNqZmIzMnU5bjB5

 

[pmccumber]

The proposal itself is the line we can't cross. Any mumbling bumbling idiot knows the actual language inside the bill will be interpreted in various ways and be rewritten over and over for who stands to gain the most. If this goes through we'll be fighting ever increasing land sales until it's all gone over the next 50 years. It's gotta stop right here.

This ^

Here is the thing, we’ve lived most of our lives in a country where there are counter-balancing forces and now, it’s altogether possible that some billionaire(s) will find ways acquire public lands. Once they are listed, the approval gets rubber stamped by Burghum and it’s gone. Checks and balances just don’t matter anymore. Every single thing is politicized and people are numb and right now, power is consolidated in one branch and once the law is passed with them for sale, I think it won’t even come to a vote, just approval from the Dept of the Interior, part of the Executive Branch.

And honestly, there would be spin by one side of the aisle, outrage by the other and it would be out of the news cycle by the weekend. There is a new outrage every 12 milliseconds.

 

[pmccumber]

 

[DanS]

it’s altogether possible that some billionaire(s) will find ways acquire public lands. Once they are listed, the approval gets rubber stamped by Burghum and it’s gone. Checks and balances just don’t matter anymore. Every single thing is politicized and people are numb and right now, power is consolidated in one branch and once the law is passed with them for sale, I think it won’t even come to a vote, just approval from the Dept of the Interior, part of the Executive Branch.

I daresay it's probably that's exactly what will happen should this monstrosity pass. I'd bet a paycheck that there are billionaires who already gave their input on what lands ought to be offered because they want it for one reason or another. And then just like that, it'll be gone.

So much of the land for sale is obviously driven by someone who doesn't appreciate lands. Look at Boreas Pass. Virtually the entirety of Boreas Pass is up in this bill, except the ~200 acres at the summit with the section houses and old roundhouse. As if the only meaningful portion of Boreas Pass is the part with the old buildings, and interpretive signs. In my mind, the summit doesn't make sense without the pass to put it in context. And all of that hasn't touched on the beauty that is a wild forest. There's a whole world of microflora and microfauna that is beautiful and amazing, but if you don't care about it--a forest is just "underutilized."

The talking point about "housing" is pretty disingenuous in my mind. Housing is needed, for sure. But the types of "homes" that will be built on these sales will almost certainly be a terrible application of land use. Guarantee the "housing" that gets built will be second/third homes and maybe end up as STRs. I'd put money on that too.

Dan

 

[Inukshuk]

FWIW the Bennett reply, probably to the BRC or COHVCO petition I signed.

***********************************

Thank you for contacting me regarding proposals to sell public lands. I appreciate hearing from you.
I share your love of our public lands across the United States, especially in Colorado. I have fought to protect and maintain our public lands, an integral part of Colorado’s heritage, economy, and Western way of life, through legislation such as theColorado Outdoor Recreation & Economy (CORE) Act and the Gunnison Outdoor Resources Protection (GORP) Act.
Public lands are the foundation of Colorado’s economy and our heritage. Unfortunately, in their budget reconciliation bill, Senate Republicans have proposed selling our public lands. As written, the bill would make some of Colorado’s best and most treasured places eligible for sale—places where Coloradans bike, hike, hunt, and fish. Their radical proposal would sell off our children’s and grandchildren’s inheritance, and I will fight to get these provisions removed from the bill.
I will continue to oppose any legislation that threatens public lands.
Should this legislation be introduced in the Senate, I will keep your thoughts in mind.
I value the input of fellow Coloradans in considering the wide variety of important issues and legislative initiatives that come before the Senate. I hope you will continue to inform me of your thoughts and concerns.
For more information about my priorities as a U.S. Senator, I invite you to visit my website at http://bennet.senate.gov/. Again, thank you for contacting me.
Sincerely,
Michael F. Bennet
United States Senator

 

[pmccumber]

Affordable property in Hinsdale is a problem, too. It's not just Vail and Aspen and Telluride that have this issue and it may actually be more acute. The so hated billionaires in those places have the money and politicians in their pocket to make things happen. We know a friend in Lake City who's repair shop and tow business is being squeezed because of property values and inability for mechanics he'd like to add finding a place to live they can afford on what he can pay them. He's got almost no voice in Denver or Washington.

What has he actually done or said to that end?

Sen. Lee has worked with his constituents to try moving management of public lands in Utah to state control. Under their control it's possible to conceive they would sell land to privatize but that's not his stated intention that I've heard.

You are perhaps referring to Sen. Lee's support for Utah Governor Cox's lawsuit to assert control of unappropriated BLM land. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear it.

The feds own millions of acres of public land in Utah. Now the state is suing for control of over half of it.

Utah officials filed a lawsuit Tuesday asking the U.S. Supreme Court to answer a question: Can the federal government control public lands within the state indefinitely?

www.sltrib.com

In response it seems like he's proposing laws to do what the state asked of in the lawsuit. I have not been able to find a bill yet to link but this proposed text on replacement sales seems to be the crux of the arguments being thrown around the past few days.

https://www.energy.senate.gov/services/files/DF7B7FBE-9866-4B69-8ACA-C661A4F18096

Going further with Sen. Lee's actions over the years. He's introduced bills that would require Congress and the State of Utah to pass legislation in parallel to proposals of a new Monument. This is more a way to amend unilateral Executive action that occurs under the Antiquities Act. Not to prevent them from occuring or to promote any sale of the land.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/90

https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/2820

https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/220

He's introduced bills that would have moved USFS and BLM land to State of Utah control for state parks. Lands would not be sold, still public just not Federal.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/2136/

He's has introduced bills that would have prevented the de facto sale of lands. The BLM wanted to use justification of conservation and landscape health (undefined terms) to allow a lease to be granted to a highest bidder (Natural Asset Companies) who's intention was to do nothing on the land. Not just no oil or mining but no recreation, no grazing, nothing. Ownership would not have changed but who controls them would be given over to non-public managers.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/530

https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/941

Other groups he's worked with are Sustainable Trail Coalition, who want to amend in support of the Wilderness Act and potentially expand it under the condition that Congress clarify the mechanical intention. This one he's introduced every session for several years and I have a particular affinity because he's one of only a few in Congress who are sympathetic to our argument that fully human powered bikes or hunter's carts are in fact no more damaging than horses nor any less technical machines than the rafts, climbing racks, skiing, hiking and camping gear we use now. It's a picking winners situation since for the first 20 years of the Wilderness Act the USFS didn't see bikes as a problem but in 1986 lobbyists got them to re-interpret the meanings and one day bikes were just kicked out, no debate, no recourse. What we're asking is for Congress to be clear what it meant in 1964 on the matter and give local managers the authority to allow bikes where it's appropriate.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/4561

FWIW the Bennett reply, probably to the BRC or COHVCO petition I signed.

***********************************

Thank you for contacting me regarding proposals to sell public lands. I appreciate hearing from you.
I share your love of our public lands across the United States, especially in Colorado. I have fought to protect and maintain our public lands, an integral part of Colorado’s heritage, economy, and Western way of life, through legislation such as theColorado Outdoor Recreation & Economy (CORE) Act and the Gunnison Outdoor Resources Protection (GORP) Act.
Public lands are the foundation of Colorado’s economy and our heritage. Unfortunately, in their budget reconciliation bill, Senate Republicans have proposed selling our public lands. As written, the bill would make some of Colorado’s best and most treasured places eligible for sale—places where Coloradans bike, hike, hunt, and fish. Their radical proposal would sell off our children’s and grandchildren’s inheritance, and I will fight to get these provisions removed from the bill.
I will continue to oppose any legislation that threatens public lands.
Should this legislation be introduced in the Senate, I will keep your thoughts in mind.
I value the input of fellow Coloradans in considering the wide variety of important issues and legislative initiatives that come before the Senate. I hope you will continue to inform me of your thoughts and concerns.
For more information about my priorities as a U.S. Senator, I invite you to visit my website at http://bennet.senate.gov/. Again, thank you for contacting me.
Sincerely,
Michael F. Bennet
United States Senator

I got the same exact letter from Bennet. Let me point out, CO senators are already opposing it and at least right now the ball is back in the House’s court. For whatever reason I felt like a guy who risks losing his seat if public lands are affected in a large way and in a chamber where the bill passed by one vote might be more apt to change. Here is my reply from Feckless Jeff Hurd. He is also hosting an online town hall tonight.

Dear Mr. McCumber,

Thank you for contacting me to express your concerns regarding public lands in Colorado. I appreciate the opportunity to respond.

Public lands are part of what makes Colorado, Colorado, and I take the obligation to protect them seriously. The first piece of legislation I introduced in Congress was H.R. 1125, the LOCAL Act, which permanently relocates the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) headquarters within our district in Grand Junction. I strongly believe that the people that are tasked with managing our federal lands should be located in the west, with the vast majority of our public lands.

I also believe that the commitment we make to protect our public lands does not preclude the responsible development of our abundant energy and mineral resources, grazing access, and recreation. In addition, active management of our public lands can help proactively deter risks from natural disasters such as wildfires. That is why I also introduced H.R. 1997, the Productive Public Lands Act, on March 10, 2025. This legislation requires the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to reissue nine Biden era Resource Management Plans (RMPs) which prevented access to lands in Colorado, Wyoming, Oregon, and Montana. According to the BLM's own mission which states, "Congress tasked the BLM with a mandate of managing public lands for a variety of uses such as energy development, livestock grazing, recreation, and timber harvesting while ensuring natural, cultural, and historic resources are maintained for present and future use." This legislation would hold the BLM to their own mission.

While we may not see eye-to-eye on this issue, rest assured that I will keep your thoughts in mind should related legislation concerning our public lands comes to a vote on the House Floor.

I would like to thank you again for taking the time to contact me. If there is anything I can do for you in the future, please do not hesitate to contact my office. You can see what I am working on in Congress on behalf of Colorado’s Third Congressional District by checking my X account (@RepJeffHurd), my YouTube channel (@RepJeffHurd03), or by subscribing to my official newsletter here.

 

[pmccumber]

This just came down this morning. It's out for now. But, Mike Lee is acting quickly to submit a revised proposal. Fortunately, this pissed off hunters, a Republican demographic and conservative voters reacted.

 

[AlpineAccess]

“I know that Sen. Daines thought he inoculated himself by saying, ‘Well, none of it’s going to be sold in Montana,’ which is ridiculous because public land is public land, we don’t just live in one state.” Tester added, “They’re not even doing a [committee] vote on it, they’re just sending it out so there can be no accountability, and then when they put it in the big bill, they’ll vote for it and say, ‘Well, I couldn’t vote against it because of this.’ What a bunch of bullshit,” Tester said.

Lee said Monday night... “I’m doing everything I can to support President Trump and move this forward. Stay tuned. We’re just getting started.”

Interesting how that doesn't read "...doing everything I can to further the interests of the American People..." but we know who these appointees work for - the guy who's never gone hunting, hiking, fishing, off-roading, or any activity that would take you into the backcountry.

 

[Hulk]

New and related:
Millions of acres of Colorado forest under threat after Trump reverses longstanding roadless rule
https://coloradosun.com/2025/06/23/roadless-rule-reversal-colorado-federal-lands/

I fall in the middle of "no human should set foot in wilderness areas and all roads should be eliminated" and "let's log and mine the shit out of every square inch of public land." Apparently that means no one in congress represents me, because you must be either a radical environmentalist or an oil company CEO to have a voice.

My position:

• Not all roads are bad.
• Not every forest needs to be clear cut.

 

[RayRay27]

Not sure how invested Michael Bennett is at this point? He's leaving as senator after his term is up to run for Governor of Colorado. I'm sure he's pretty much checked out.