Selling public lands could be on the table as Congress attempts to pass a federal budget.
During a 13-hour hearing Tuesday, May 6, Democrats on the House Natural Resources Committee repeatedly introduced amendments to the spending bill, which ranking member Jared Huffman (D-Calif.) called the "most cartoonishly extreme environmental destruction bill this country has ever seen."
It would mandate new oil and gas lease sales across public lands in Western states (including in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming), reduce the royalties fossil fuels companies pay to lease, and would charge the public a fee to comment during environmental review processes.
Prior to markup, conservation groups expressed deep concerns over the bill in a letter signed by over 40 organizations, including Western Colorado's Wilderness Workshop, the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, and the Wyoming Outdoor Council.
"This bill prioritizes corporate profits over the American people, effectively transferring management and control of hundreds of millions of acres of national public lands to the oil and gas industry," the letter reads.
During the hearing, Republicans voted down amendment after amendment, not answering questions or engaging in any debate.
This prompted Colorado Democrat Joe Neguse to ask whether they were under a "gag order."
"Why are you here?" he asked Republicans on the committee. "Why attend this hearing? Just to sit here for 10 hours and say nothing? This is what your constituents pay you for? I mean, why not defend your values?"
One of Neguse's proposed amendments was to prevent cuts to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and its programs "that protect communities and local economies from extreme weather and natural disasters." Republicans voted against it.
Republicans move to sell public lands "in the dark of night"
At 11 p.m. EDT, after 13 hours of rejected amendments from Democrats, Republicans Mark Amodei (R-Nev.) and Celeste Maloy (R-Utah) introduced an amendment to the proposed budget, which would prompt the sale of thousands of acres of public lands in both states.
Maloy said there were certain lands that everyone agrees should not be for sale, but this land in southwestern Utah would help reduce the federal deficit, and would help local communities.
"Approximately 82% of (Washington) County is federally managed, mostly BLM," she said. Washington County includes St. George, a gateway city for Zion National Park and a rapidly growing area. "The high percentage of federal lands impacts the local government's ability to work on economic and transportation development, manage natural resources and fully take advantage of recreational activities."
The full amendment does not provide any maps, but references land in Washington and Beaver counties in Utah, as well as the city of St. George. The parcels referenced in the Utah section total over 10,000 acres. In Nevada, the amendment directs the Interior Secretary to identify lands in Washoe, Pershing, and Clark counties to sell, amounting to hundreds of thousands of acres.
Democrats were astonished at the amendment, many questioning why the Republicans would introduce it in the "dark of the night," without a hearing before the Public Lands Subcommittee, and without any maps or financial analysis.
Neguse questioned whether Amodei, who represents the northern third of Nevada, had discussed the amendment with representatives whose districts encompass the land he wanted disposed of. Amodei conceded that he did not represent Clark County, which led to a tense exchange between the lawmakers.
"Well, I don't know how it works in Colorado, sir, but I can tell you, in Nevada, we all talk frequently, and this is not going to come as a surprise to any of them," Amodei replied. "Please feel free to consult them as you see fit."
"They support this? They support this amendment?" Neguse pressed.
"They are aware of the—"
"They're aware of it?"
"Don't put words in my mouth," Amodei said.
"I'm asking you," Neguse replied. "I'm not putting words—I'm asking you. I'm saying, are they supportive of this amendment? You haven't asked your colleagues in Nevada whether or not they support the conveyance of land in their district, not yours."
"The answer to your question is no," Amodei said.
Other members of Nevada's delegation expressed strong opposition to Amodei's amendment, including both its Democratic senators, Catherine Cortez Masto and Jacky Rosen. The senators called the amendment "a land grab" and said they would oppose it if it made it to the Senate.
"We do exchanges and sales, occasionally, of public land, but always with a hearing, always with witnesses and testimony, and the scrutiny and transparency of a deliberative process," Huffman said. "This is just some truly odious sausage (made) at 11:20 p.m., at the end of a long markup. And to do it over the opposition… of other members of Congress who actually represent these areas, this doesn't pass the straight face test."
Jeff Hurd, who represents Colorado's 3rd Congressional District, which includes much of the Western Slope and southern Colorado, was the lone Republican vote against the amendment.
Despite his opposition, the measure did pass, and the bill will be considered by the full House.
"I voted no on the Amodei amendment because it would have violated one of the fundamental principles of public lands management that I campaigned on—decisions should be made by local communities," Hurd wrote in a statement to Rocky Mountain Community Radio.
Conservation and public lands advocates like the Center for Western Priorities were also dismayed to hear of the 13th-hour amendment.
"Privatizing public lands is a drastic step that should be made with public input and congressional debate—not during a midnight vote on a budget bill," Deputy Director Aaron Weiss wrote in a statement. "Once these lands are gone, they're gone forever—that means no more hiking, no more biking, no more grazing, no more habitat for wildlife. Now it's up to the full House and Senate to listen to their constituents and reject this sell-off once it's seen in the harsh light of day."
"This plan was cooked up behind closed doors, and Utahns and Americans aren't going to let her get away with this," wrote Travis Tramill, SUWA's DC Director, referring to Rep. Maloy. "The Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, our members, and our partners are making certain that in the light of day, her actions will be seen for what they truly are: a sell-off of public lands to pay for billionaire tax cuts. Shame on her."
Public land for housing?
The idea that Congress should dispose of or sell public lands for housing or other purposes has gained traction with the Trump administration in recent months.
A recent study from Headwaters Economics found that much of the land that could be considered viable for residential development has issues. Economists found that only 3.2 million acres of Interior and U.S. Forest Service land across the entire country was close enough to towns to make sense for development.
Over half of the land analyzed in the study was at high risk of wildfire. Overall, they concluded that fewer than 700,000 new housing units could be built safely on these lands, concentrated in states like Nevada, Arizona, and California, with some smaller opportunities in Utah and New Mexico.
Megan Lawson is one of the economists who worked on the study. In an interview with Rocky Mountain Community Radio, she said though housing availability and affordability remain big issues in Western states, public lands are not the silver bullet solution.
"If we are selling off public lands at the market rate, auctioning it off to the highest bidder, we're going to be auctioning off high-value lands that (are) going to cost a lot, and just by definition, those lands are not going to be affordable," she said.
"We're not going to be able to build affordable housing, and so that will really be a sell-off to benefit a small number of people who are able to afford that higher-end, more luxury housing. It is not going to help housing affordability in… our gateway public lands communities. If anything, it's going to make it worse and contribute to the rising cost of living."
She also said there are other economic consequences to the sale of public lands.
"I think it overlooks how much our Western gateway communities depend on those public lands for their economy and for their economic well-being in so many ways," she said. "Whether it's resource extraction, oil, gas, mining, whether it's agriculture, whether it is outdoor recreation, you know, so many communities have really built up around this."
There's also evidence to indicate that selling public lands—including for housing development—is a deeply unpopular idea in the West. Colorado College polling indicates that 82% of voters across seven Western states are opposed to selling public land for housing.
Copyright 2025 Rocky Mountain Community Radio.
This story was shared via Rocky Mountain Community Radio, a network of public media stations in Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, and New Mexico, including KSUT.
