Federal land sale idea not new, nor good for public

Granted, some of the hype over the federal land sale measure tucked inside the “big beautiful” federal spending bill (as spearheaded by U.S. Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah) is a little misleading. The bill doesn’t actually sell all federal land in the Mountain West, or even most of it. 

It actually directs the federal government to dispose of about 1% because it exempts national parks, historic sites, wilderness, and all of Montana as an acknowledgement that some of the Montana delegation is adamantly opposed to it.

As they should be.

As all of us should be.

The idea of selling off federal land, of course, is a MAGA talking point. It resonates well in places like Wyoming, where the feds control roughly 48% or 62.34 million acres and, therefore, have an outsized amount of political and economic leverage. But let’s take out the most obvious lands, which only the most ardent anti-federal fringe would suggest we sell: Yellowstone National Park (2.2 million acres), Grand Teton National Park (310,000 acres), and all the other U.S. forests (including Medicine Bow Routt in our backyard) and the Thunder Basin National Grasslands (combined they account for 9 million acres). Suddenly, we are talking about lands that already could be nominated for sale or trade, which happens all the time. That reality would make this measure nothing more than political grandstanding.

Yet, TBNG north of us and pieces of the forests outside of wilderness areas – including most of the Med-Bow south of us –would be up for grabs under this proposal, which would lock up more public land in the hands of billionaires. While local governments could match the sale price (a right of first refusal under the bill), none – even the more wealthy ones like Converse County and City of Douglas – could begin to compete with the deep pockets of the mega-wealthy. 

Meanwhile, two other far-right agenda items runs counter to this proposal as well. Private property rights advocates say landowners should be able to do as they please with their land. Sure, that sounds good and generally we agree. But what about when billionaires buy up large swaths of private property and, due to the checkerboard nature of public lands in Wyoming, they block up access to public lands we use to hunt, fish, hike camp or just enjoy.

That is already a big issue with the outdoors folks. Think about the corner-crossing battle from just south of us playing out in the courts or the anger hunters express about prime elk herds being inaccessible “just over that fence” separating public and private lands.

With the federal land sale idea, these billionaires would then be allowed to swallow up even more federal lands, blocking more even more access. We live in a state that prizes its access to the beautiful areas of this state. 

Sen. Lee said his intent is to sell “unused, garden-variety federal parcels.” As the Wyoming Wildlife Federation aptly put it, “But he is not the one with boots on the ground in Wyoming, you are . . . Public lands disposal should take time with input from the communities it surrounds. Some parcels close to population centers may make sense, others will be parcels that are our open spaces and our connection to the lands. Budget reconciliation is not the place to parse this out.”

Sens. John Barrasso and Cynthia Lummis, both R-WY, are fairly mum on their stances on this measure. In a news article, Rep. Harriet Hageman, R-WY, recently contended that only a tiny fraction of federal lands in Wyoming might go up for sale, arguing those would mostly be near communities that could use the space for housing. That argument may matter in land-locked places like Jackson; it falls flat in the “open prairie” communities like Douglas and Glenrock where housing problems are caused by high costs, few builders and most lands around them in private hands already.

 Some federal lands should be sold, and they can be nominated for sale or swap now. There is a process for that, and the public gets to weigh in on any nomination.

Mandating the sale of federal lands to fund a tax break for billionaires is political theatre with potentially disastrous consequences for public access.

––Matt Adelman