A U.S. senator proposed forcing the sale of millions of acres of federal public lands, drawing immediate and vocal pushback this week.
Among the lands eligible for sale -- if the proposal survives -- are some of Flagstaff鈥檚 most popular recreation areas.
Patrice Horstman, chair of the Coconino County Board of Supervisors, said she was shocked and disappointed by the proposal, and called it 鈥渁 real failure to read what the interests are for people in this country.鈥�
Utah Sen. Mike Lee, a Republican who chairs the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, released the text of that committee鈥檚 proposed version of the Budget Reconciliation Bill on June 11. It contained a requiring the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to sell at least 2 million acres of land within five years.
The proposed legislation includes few limits on what federal land could be sold, and few provisions for public input on the sale process. Nonprofit conservation group The Wilderness Society of the 250 million acres of Forest Service and BLM lands across 11 states that would be eligible for sale under the proposed criteria.聽The secretaries of agriculture and interior would be responsible for deciding which of those eligible areas to sell.
The parcels at risk include popular recreational areas, such as the southern slopes of Mount Elden and the Dry Lake Hills -- a zone where the Forest Service, conservation corps crews and local volunteers have invested thousands of hours over the past three years to improve Flagstaff鈥檚 recreational trails.
All of the national forest land around Sunset Crater and Walnut Canyon National Monument could be sold, and major parcels along both sides of Lake Mary Road are also eligible. Even a portion of the Inner Basin of the San Francisco Peaks could theoretically go up for sale.聽聽
鈥淚 think many of us -- in fact, I think the vast majority of Americans -- believe that our public lands are some of our best ideas here in this country,鈥� Horstman said. Federal lands provide economic value through ranching, timber sales and outdoor recreation, she said, as well as wildlife habitat and protection for culturally important sites.
Lee claims that the proposal will help create affordable housing for rural communities. However, by Headwaters Economics -- the same independent firm advising Coconino County on wildfire risk and homeowner鈥檚 insurance聽-- shows that only a small proportion of federally owned land is suitable for building affordable housing. Moreover, Lee's proposal places no clear restrictions on how the land must be used once sold.
鈥淚鈥檓 happy to see that housing has become a national issue and a national discussion, because I think it needs to be," Horstman said. "But ... selling off our public lands does not make any sense for affordable housing.鈥�
(Horstman authored an op-ed for the Arizona Daily Sun in April on the same topic. In that piece, she wrote, "The housing shortage is not due to the lack of developable land but is due to the high cost of construction. Utilizing federal land for development does not address the cost of materials, labor and infrastructure.")
Chris Wood, CEO of the nonprofit conservation group Trout Unlimited, believes that under certain circumstances there could be valid justifications for limited sales or swaps of federal land in order to "meet the needs of the local community while maintaining the national interest in keeping public lands in public hands."
But Lee's proposal, he said, lacks any of the necessary nuance or transparency even聽to begin that conversation.
鈥淭here are good public policy reasons to talk about doing transfers and trades, and even sales, in a logical, thoughtful, manner that鈥檚 done in broad daylight with full public involvement,鈥� Wood said. 鈥淭hat is not what is being proposed in the Senate. This is a clandestine, backdoor effort that鈥檚 had absolutely zero public involvement and runs afoul of America鈥檚 incredibly rich conservation history.鈥�
The result of Lee's proposal, he said, would be to transform public lands into "the playground of the wealthy."聽
鈥淭he communities that stand to lose the most are the communities that use public lands to hunt, to fish, to hike, to camp, to be with their families," he added.
鈥淢y hope is that cooler heads will prevail here, and members of Congress will recognize that this thing has not been vetted, it鈥檚 not well thought-out, it鈥檚 frankly ham-handed,鈥� Wood said. 鈥淎nd that鈥檚 not a good way to make public policy.鈥�
A similar proposal to force the sale of just 500,000 acres of land was already rejected by the House of Representatives during its debates over the budget bill. One of the strongest voices was Republican Ryan Zinke, who served as secretary of the interior during Donald Trump鈥檚 first presidential term and now represents Montana.
Democratic Sens. Mark Kelly and Ruben Gallego of Arizona both publicly stated opposition to Lee鈥檚 proposal.
鈥淚 oppose any effort to force the sale of Forest Service land in Arizona,鈥� Kelly said in a statement released by his office on June 17. 鈥淭hese public lands are part of who we are as they support our economy, protect our environment and offer Arizonans a place to hike, hunt and explore. Selling them off to fund Trump鈥檚 tax giveaways to billionaires is reckless and wrong. Once they鈥檙e gone, they鈥檙e gone for good 鈥� lost forever to public use and conservation.鈥�
鈥淚鈥檒l keep fighting to make sure Arizona鈥檚 forests stay public, protected and open to all,鈥� Kelly added.
鈥淓arlier this year, I reached out to the administration and my colleagues across the aisle letting them know I am ready and willing to work in a bipartisan fashion to find thoughtful solutions to use federal land for affordable housing. I heard nothing,鈥� Gallego wrote in (formerly Twitter). 鈥淣ow, they are burying language to sell off public lands in their reckless budget bill -- arbitrarily mandating how much land should be sold and leaving out any protections to ensure the housing built on that land would be affordable. This isn鈥檛 the solution.鈥�
Utah has long been a nexus for opposition to federal land management: during the 1970s and 1980s, ranchers and their political allies pushed back against environmental regulation and advocated for the transfer of federal lands to the state. In one instance, officials of Grand County, Utah, into a BLM Wilderness Study Area. The movement to end federal land tenure, dubbed the "Sagebrush Rebellion," has simmered in Western states since, with occasional eruptions like the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge takeover in Oregon in 2016.
And some Utah politicians remain at the forefront of the movement today.
Utah Gov. Spencer Cox attempted to sue the federal government to force a land transfer in 2024, and the unsuccessful House proposal to mandate public land sales was introduced by Utah Rep. Celeste Maloy.
In the White House, Trump has demonstrated a willingness to remove protections from federal lands. He shrank the size of multiple national monuments in his first term, and this year his administration announced a review of all national monument lands and directed land management agencies to wherever possible.
Last week, the Department of Justice justifying Trump鈥檚 authority to unilaterally undo national monument designations. And last month, a letter outlining Trump鈥檚 for the upcoming fiscal year included a recommendation to transfer some units of the National Park Service to states.
Whether Lee鈥檚 proposal can hold up on the Senate floor remains to be seen. Supporters of public lands have raised the alarm since the bill鈥檚 text was revealed, and the defeat of Maloney鈥檚 version in the House signals the proposal might not have the support necessary to reach Trump鈥檚 desk.
鈥淚 would like to say that I鈥檓 optimistic because of the large outcry all across this country from so many people. And this is a bipartisan issue, to protect our public lands," Horstman said. "But then again, I鈥檓 also concerned because I鈥檝e seen what鈥檚 transpiring in Washington."
鈥淚 think we all need to make sure to be heard on this," she continued. "Our public lands are our inheritance, for us now and for future generations."