Public Land Sell Offs Are Back as House Rules Package Contains Giveaway Provision
Mt Jefferson, Oregon. Photo credit: Ben Kitching.
The House Rules package, passed on Monday evening, included a provision to make it easier to transfer or sell off public lands. This provision, a replica of another land transfer provision included in 2017, is a trial balloon meant to test Americans willingness to see public lands sold off.
The rules package governs how the House will operate over the next two years, and this provision (Section 3g) enables public land transfers to be treated as “budget neutral”—so that lawmakers could more easily transfer, sell off, donate, or exchange public lands.
Typically, laws are scored to see how they would affect the federal budget and their cost to taxpayers. This new rule will automatically score all land transfer measures as budget neutral.
This budgetary maneuver is designed to make it look like giving away or selling public land would cost nothing. In fact, public lands are a large source of government revenue and the foundation of the growing outdoor recreation economy and the well-being of many local communities. Our National Parks, Forests, BLM lands, and Wildlife Refuges are invaluable for the climbing, hiking, camping, paddling, mountain biking, and skiing opportunities they provide. This amendment essentially allows Congress to give away or sell public land without considering costs to the American people.
As many of you may remember, this is not the first time we have beaten back bad ideas about selling off public lands. Back in 2017, Americans responded swiftly and with outrage to this same House provision, and many other bad ideas to come, eventually quashing many of the worst ideas. Public lands are enormously popular among Americans across political identities, and Outdoor Alliance spent years bringing the voices of the outdoor community to lawmakers to fight ill-conceived land transfer proposals.
Notably, the legislation also includes reference to Tribal lands and we acknowledge there are situations where it is appropriate to transfer public lands. In the past few years, some federal lands have been returned to Tribes to manage, including the Katimiîn and Ameekyáaraam Sacred Lands Act. This legislation seems to be oriented toward extraction or sell off, but these rules could also be used to support the transfer and return of Tribal lands. A more finely calibrated approach is necessary, especially one that does not imply public lands have zero monetary value.
The House rules package also contained a provision to set up debate on a bill would compel the government to lease more public lands and waters to fossil fuel developers. This provision would require that all non-emergency drawdowns of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve be accompanied by a plan to increase fossil fuel leasing on federal lands. At a time when the country needs to be transitioning toward renewable energy and reducing its dependence on fossil fuels, requiring the government to arbitrarily lease off public lands and waters for development is the wrong approach. Finally, there is an additional provision around congressional appropriations, which caps spending levels and could ultimately lead to budget cuts for the Interior Department and other land management agencies.
The passage of these provisions is a harbinger of bad ideas to come. While it may be difficult for lawmakers to pass any legislation this year, especially unpopular proposals given the likely gridlock in Congress, the inclusion of the provision is a clear sign that lawmakers are looking for license to move ahead with selling off public lands.
It’s incredibly important—and highly effective—for constituents to respond to these rules. We’ve made it simple to write a message to your House members telling them you are concerned about this provision and what is means for legislation to come.