The Conservative Case for Public Lands
New Podcast Out.
As the Senate debates the “One Big Beautiful Bill,” a provision to authorize the sale of at least three million public land acres is being considered. About 28% of all U.S. land is publicly-held by the federal government. WSJ reports upwards of 258M of 640M federally-held public land acres—about 40%—could be up for sale.
This is being pushed under the guise of “affordable housing” and “fixing” the debt and deficit.
Personally speaking, as someone who wants a balanced budget and restrained spending, I don’t buy this framing. It’s obfuscating the underlying causes of debt accrual and unchecked government spending. At best, it’s a smokescreen for land transference to developers.
Let me explain why.
First, how is affordable housing going to be defined? Section 8 housing on Bureau of Land Management (BLM) or Forest Service (USFS) lands? Most of these lands being targeted are difficult to reach and aren’t suitable for any kind of housing. I’ve spent a lot of time out West in these areas, and you can’t see hospitals or shopping centers for at least 50 miles. No American family from the Eastern U.S. is going to settle here, especially if they have no experience with ranching, farming, difficult terrain, et al.
Second, entitlement spending - not federally-owned “assets” like public lands - is eating the lion’s share of our $37 trillion debt. Even if you hypothetically sell all 640 million federally-held acres, you wouldn’t recoup even 1/37 of the debt that’s been accrued. Politicians in Washington, D.C., on both sides of the aisle, are addicted to spending. I don’t trust most to steward our monies responsibly. And now this effort that opens the door to wholesale transfer? It’s a lose-lose situation for the American people. The debt will increase and public land access, big or small, will be lost forever.
This will put us on a path to becoming Europe, where only wealthy people can access pristine lands and waters. That’s a future I don’t want for America. Hard pass.
Public Lands Matter. They Need Better Management.
Readers of my Substack know my position on public lands.
I’m very clear about where I stand: I’m against the wholesale transfer or sale of them, especially when orchestrated by my fellow Republicans. This is a fringe movement that’s getting more online traction than it should. I’m also against mismanagement of public lands and radical rewilding efforts by Democratic lawmakers in the name of fighting climate change. Neither extreme represents my worldview.
I believe in a middle ground: addressing mismanagement while maximizing access for multiple-uses.
Trial Balloon
Housing is an issue nationwide. It’s expensive to buy a home today. Yet 9% of available inventory - or 16 million homes - is currently vacant. Zoning reform, like increasing height restrictions, will fix many of these issues in urban areas.
Why target public lands in rural areas with water issues and no infrastructure? How does this impact urban areas? It doesn’t. Make it make sense!
This is essentially a trial balloon. Earlier this year, a Utah lawsuit with a similar goal was rejected, without explanation, by the conservative-led Supreme Court. SCOTUS is open to reforming the Antiquities Act, and they even thought this was extreme. This is a last-ditch effort to pass public land sales through Congress, via the reconciliation process. Congress, even with its slight GOP majorities, is narrowly-held and contentious issues like this are (thankfully) difficult to pass this, either as a standalone bill or as part of reconciliation.
If precedence is to be followed, this provision is unlikely to survive the final Senate version of the One Big Beautiful Bill (OBBB). Why? The House provision was successfully killed by the likes of former Interior Secretary and current Rep. Ryan Zinke (R-MT).
My thoughts on this amendment are better articulated in this new District of Conservation episode. I chat with Rocky Mountain Radio hosts Braxton McCoy and Patrick Payne about this concerning effort. We discuss:
The 2-3M acres “up” for sale
If this is truly underscored by affordable housing concerns or developer scheme
The monetary value of all 640M federally-held public lands (Hint: it’s not $100T) and if you should assign a value
Why a middle ground approach to public lands management is needed
How public lands issues have been hijacked by the far left
And much more.
Listen on Apple Podcasts
Be sure to subscribe to the Rocky Mountain Radio Podcast, too.
Glad you’re fighting on this Gabriella. Sally and I were just at Yosemite yesterday and we’ve been driving through redwood forests all this week. The idea of selling off any of our protected lands like this is offensive. There’s no justification for it whatsoever.