THREE DAYS AGO, while dozens of other alarming events were occurring simultaneously, a proposal to sell off millions of acres of public land was announced. Hard to focus on losing national parks to wealthy individuals when children are being pulled out of elementary schools and deported, but here we are.
Consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
The Hill, a conservative news blog, reports: Republican Sen. Mike Lee, who chairs the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, included the sale of federal lands—a longtime ambition of Western conservatives to cede lands to local1 control—in a draft provision of the so-called “One Big Beautiful Bill.”
Put on your high-school teacher hat for this info: Lee didn’t come up with this idea on his own. In 2017, he’d worked with his House buddy, Congressman Jason Chaffetz2 also of Utah, but the proposal was scrapped after Chaffetz ducked out and cut his House time short for the chance to be a commentator on Fox News. Sewer rats, the lot of them.
Now, Utah’s monied men evidently have encouraged Sen. Lee to try again, now! while no one is watching. While the current resurrected proposal still calls for the sale of 3.3 million acres—ultimately, says the Salt Lake Tribune, more than 18 million acres in Utah alone will be made available. The eligible land, the Tribune reports, even includes some of the state’s most popular ski areas. In all…there are 258 million sale-eligible acres across the West in Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington and Wyoming. [Mike Lee] said in a video released by his office that the sales would not include national parks, national monuments3 or wilderness. They would instead target “isolated parcels” that could be used for housing or infrastructure.
In the above map, the green is U S Forest Service land and the tan is Bureau of Land Management.
Curious about that big blank white chunk that’s Montana? Yeah, me too. Here’s the answer from Cowboy State Daily:
“Why aren’t we exempt and Montana is?” asked Rick Mickelsen, a retired oil and gas worker from Thermopolis and spokesperson for the Keep it Public Wyoming coalition…
Republicans… say the money would be used to create more affordable housing4 and pay down America’s crushing debt, while Democrats argue it’s to pay for proposed tax cuts for the wealthy.
But after intense public backlash in Montana, Republican Sen. Steve Daines, the state's senior senator, carved out an exemption for Montana.
On Wednesday, the conservation group Wild Montana said there’s a chance Daines could be trying to remove the sale of public lands from the bill altogether, not just for his state. [Italics mine.] “If that effort fails,” said folks from Wild Montana, “we expect both senators to vote against the bill in its entirety.”
The map above shows recreation assets at risk including much of the Teton National Forest and the Absaroka range in Wyoming; Mount Hood’s 44 Trails network; the headwaters of the Little White Salmon; the Sandy Ridge trail system; the South Fork Payette River; the South Salmon and huge swaths of the Sawtooths in Idaho; the Trinity Alps and the Stanislaus National Forest [western slope of Sierra Nevadas between Lake Tahoe and Yosemite] in California; the Juniper Mountains [5K-7K feet, fantastic for much-needed housing sites] in Arizona; Lunch Loops [photo way below] outside Grand Junction, Colorado; and Hartman Rocks [photo below] outside Gunnison, Colorado; as well as many more.
Hartman Rocks, outside of Gunnison, Colorado. Another ideal site for affordable housing, according to Utah Senator Mike Lee, who is no doubt planning on putting in a pied-a-terre on this very terre. Are Colorado and Utah still speaking to each other? Remember when we thought all those squarish states were best friends?
This “sell off the public lands” bill isn’t about saving taxpayers money. (I know, shocking revelation.) This isn’t about “poor management” of land by state governments. What the hell is it about, really?
More than 14 million acres of federal public land in Colorado could be eligible for sale if Congress passes the current version of the budget bill mandating the sale of a fraction of the nation’s public lands, an analysis by The Wilderness Society found. The eligible parcels cover chunks of mountain, foothills and plains along the Front Range and the Western Slope. The budget draft requires the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service to sell between 0.5% and 0.75% of the 438 million acres the agencies manage across the West — up to 3.3 million acres, or 5,100 square miles. It exempts certain lands from sale, including national monuments, wilderness areas, national conservation areas, national parks and national recreation areas.5 Public lands with existing mining or drilling rights would also be exempted.
This map and analysis were made possible thanks to the hard work of Phil Hartger. Data current as of legislative text dated June 16, 2025.
This is Lunch Loops, Colorado, on the list of 3.3 million acres to be sold to “any interested party,” for, as Senator Mike Lee’s/Fox News commentator Jason Chaffetz’s bill says, a potential site to help solve housing crisis. Oh, and no doubt currently poorly managed by Colorado—I mean, look how dusty those rocks are! I’m not going to wash those cut-offs!
If the BB budget is passed by the July 4 deadline, an estimated 16 million acres6 in California are at risk of being sold over the next five years, including areas adjacent to Yosemite National Park, Mount Shasta, Big Sur and Lake Tahoe.
Lake Tahoe, late 1920s; my uncle Andrew Robertson stands outside of what hopefully can be some sorely needed inexpensive housing, as called for in Mike Lee’s proposal.
Lee says sale of public lands could promote economic growth and housing7 across the western U.S. and could generate upward of $10 billion8 for the federal government, as reported from KSBW in Monterey:
“They capped it at 3 million acres, but 258 million acres is on the menu,” Michael Carroll, Bureau of Land Management campaign director for the Wilderness Society, told SFGATE….What also alarms Carroll, beyond the sheer scale of land, is who the potential buyers would be. The updated bill language states that “any interested party” could make a purchase. States would have first right of refusal to sell land, but Carroll called the provision “a joke.” “Most states are facing massive budget shortfalls this year and don’t have resources to keep up against billionaires or millionaires, or corporations,” who would likely want to buy the land, he said.
The Wilderness Society is having a hard time not saying, I TOLD YOU SO!
On January 9, 2025, it warned:
Despite what the proponents of this change may claim, this move only has one logical end: selling public lands off to the highest bidder. Make no mistake, public lands sell-offs can only hurt communities and the environment alike. As our Campaign Director Michael Carroll told The New York Times, “If those lands get sold off, you’re going to see large privatization… loss of access and large-scale development.”
“Local” as in “a bunch of rich local guys,” not “local” as in “local government,” unless those same wealthy folks also just happen to be elected officials as well. Otherwise, private money, private land, nothing to see here, folks, have a nice life.
When Chaffetz ran for Congress, his biggest contributor was Nu Skin, an international (big in China) multi-level marketing company (what used to be called a pyramid) for skin care products, headed by male principals who are also prominent LDS disciples. The link here is to one of their spokeswomen: Venus Williams. If bedfellows can get any stranger, let me know.
More affordable housing in wild lands? Take a good look at Lunch Loops, above, and send me an estimate on the cost of getting water and sewage out there, you know, cheaply, because this is all to save the taxpayers money … so the billionaires with their tax cuts will have the cash to buy the taxpayers’ recreational areas. And put up an electric fence.
I do see some pushback today even from conservatives re the "sell-off".
And I loved Dinah and the 53/54 Chevy. (My Dad was a parts manager at a Chevy garage at the time and the only difference in the two years was the taillights. I know, trivia.)
I do see some pushback today even from conservatives re the "sell-off".
And I loved Dinah and the 53/54 Chevy. (My Dad was a parts manager at a Chevy garage at the time and the only difference in the two years was the taillights. I know, trivia.)