A Quiet Push to Sell Public Lands

In a late-night move that flew under the radar for most Americans, Representatives Mark Amodei (R-NV) and Celeste Maloy (R-UT) proposed an amendment to the House Natural Resources Committee’s Reconciliation Bill that aims to speed up the process of disposing of federal public lands in Utah and Nevada. The amendment passed largely along partisan lines, with Rep. Hurd (R-CO) serving as the one dissenting Republican vote. 

What’s in the Amendment?

The amendment directs the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to dispose of large areas of public land. It overrides the current system laid out by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), the law that has governed how we manage public lands since 1976.

Rather than requiring careful analysis and local input, the amendment mandates that these lands be sold, exchanged, or transferred on an expedited timeline—essentially cutting corners on the planning, environmental review, and public participation that would normally happen under FLPMA.

What’s FLPMA, and Why Does It Matter?

Congress passed FLPMA in 1976, and ensures public lands are managed for multiple uses—grazing, recreation, energy, wildlife and fisheries, clean water, and more. It also establishes that lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management remain in public ownership unless there’s a strong case for disposal. Here’s how it typically works:

• BLM conducts land use planning, including public meetings and coordination with state and local governments.
• Lands identified for disposal go through a transparent review process, often including environmental analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Just because land is identified as suitable for disposal, does not require that the land must be sold, nor does it provide any timeline for sale. 
• The public gets a chance to weigh in, including local residents, hunters, ranchers, Tribes, and others who use or value these lands.
• Sales occur at fair market value, and include public notice and a competitive bidding process, unless certain exemptions apply.
• Congressional notification required for sales exceeding 2,500 acres. Congress has 90-days for either body to formally disapprove, or the sale can proceed. 

Of course, this means that the process can be slow because of all of the various boxes that must be checked before a parcel is sold. However, that process exists for good reason. It ensures that land isn’t sold off just to meet a short-term political or budgetary goal and that local voices are heard before public land changes hands. Remember, public lands can only be sold once. Once sold for development, they are gone from the federal estate forever.  

How This Amendment Speeds Things Up—and Cuts You Out

This amendment alters the FLMPA process in significant ways. It declares that the tens of thousands of acres of public lands identified in the amendment must be offered for sale or exchange and sets a much faster timeline for BLM to make it happen. This is a departure from FLPMA, which doesn’t actually require selling lands, by mandating sales. This also means less time for public input, less analysis of how land sales might affect hunting access, habitat, or other public uses, and fewer checks to make sure the transfers actually benefit the public.

Where Does the Money Go?

Under current law, most proceeds from BLM land sales go into the Federal Land Disposal Account (FLDA), created under the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act (FLTFA). That account helps agencies buy high-priority conservation lands, enter into easements for access, and other purposes that benefit public lands so we don’t end up with fragmented landscapes or blocked access. In short, the proceeds ensure that by selling less desirable lands, we are able to invest in replacing those acres or improving acres in a way that achieves a net positive for our public lands

The new amendment changes that. Instead of using the revenue to improve public land management, it would redirect the money to general Treasury funds to be spread across the entire federal government. In other words, it turns public land into a short-term revenue source, with no guarantee those dollars come back to support land, wildlife, or access.

Why It Matters

Public land management doesn’t always need to be slow—but it does need to be smart. When lands are sold off without a full understanding of their value or without hearing from the people who use them, we risk losing more than acreage. We lose hunting grounds. We lose grazing opportunities. We lose access for the next generation.

This amendment may be wrapped in the language of “efficiency,” but what it really does is remove the public—especially local stakeholders—from the decision-making process.

Where Things Stand Now

The amendment has passed the House Natural Resources Committee but has not yet been voted on by the full House. The Senate would also need to weigh in, and it’s unclear whether this provision will make it through intact.

Still, the fact that such a sweeping change was introduced late at night, with minimal discussion, is a reminder of how important it is to stay informed and involved. Public lands are part of what makes this country unique—open to all, rich in opportunity, and managed with a long view. Selling them off behind closed doors is the wrong way to go.

If you would like to email your members of Congress about this issue, you can take action here.

David Willms is associate vice president for public lands at the National Wildlife Federation. He is a passionate hunter, hiker, and backpacker, and when he’s not at work, he can be found exploring our nation’s public lands with his family.