Over the last couple of weeks, there’s been a whirlwind of news regarding the potential sale of public lands for housing development in 11 states, including Wyoming.
This has hit home in the Cowboy State, where about 48% is owned and managed by the federal government. Residents have come out in droves protesting the potential sale over the last week. But the proposal has been getting pushback in the Senate as well.
To help make sense of all of this and get a better understanding of where it all stands now, Wyoming Public Radio’s Caitlin Tan and Jackson Hole Community Radio’s Dante Filpula Ankney joined WPR’s news director Kamila Kudelska to debrief.
Editor’s Note: This interview was lightly edited for brevity and clarity.
Kamila Kudelska: The bill was just updated. Where does it stand now?
Caitlin Tan: This is a proposal from Utah Republican Sen. Mike Lee, and would be added to the ‘One Big Beautiful Bill’.
The main thing to know about the recent changes is that U.S. Forest Service (USFS) land is out, but Bureau of Land Management (BLM) parcels could still be offered up. It also has to be BLM land that is within five miles from “population centers”, although “population centers” are not defined.
If this new proposal is passed, it mandates the BLM to sell up to 1.2 million acres of its land in 11 Mountain West states, not including Montana. In Wyoming, there’s worry this could include areas around Fremont Lake near Pinedale, the checkerboard near White Mountain in Rock Springs and McCullough Peaks outside of Cody.
Dante Filpula Ankney: Not to mention a spattering of parcels along the Snake River in Teton County. Lee tried to frame the changes as listening to feedback from stakeholders, like hunters. But, the original version of his proposal was actually shot down. It didn’t pass the muster of U.S. Senate rules. It has to do with something called the ‘Byrd Rule’. Basically, only budget stuff can go in a budget bill, and it was ruled Lee’s original bill is more on the policy side of things.
But also, Lee’s changes came after intense public outrage over the last week from conservationists, recreationists and politicians across the aisle.
KK: Caitlin, even with these updated changes, people are still mad. You saw some of that at a rally at the state Capitol in Cheyenne Thursday night?
CT: About 500 people showed up, spilling out of the Capitol steps and lawn. I saw lots of cowboy boots, hunter orange and mountain bike shorts. People from all different backgrounds. Rep. Karlee Provenza (D-Laramie) spoke to the crowd, even dialing up all three of Wyoming's congressional members to ask them to vote no on any public lands sell-off. She left them a voicemail and held up her phone to the crowd as they chanted “Not for sale.”
The rally finished off with Wyoming singer-songwriter Jalan Crossland playing Woody Guthrie’s ‘This Land is Your Land’.
DFA: Ultimately, the resounding sentiment across the political spectrum is people don’t want their public lands sold for housing development.
KK: Caitlin, speaking of across the political spectrum, you’ve heard quite a bit from your neck of the woods in Sublette County.
CT: Yes. My Facebook page is filled with locals who are outraged. I actually spoke to a long-time horseshoer from Pinedale, Lonny Johnson.
Lonny Johnson: I'm damn sure not a Democrat, not liberal, not a socialist. I voted for Trump. Don't have nothing to hide.
CT: But, he says he’s angry. He doesn’t want public lands to change. Johnson tried calling Wyoming’s congressional members, but he said he hasn’t got an answer or call back.
LJ: I love cowboying and working cows and doing stuff and just enjoying the beauty of it. It's like living in a postcard. And I would really not like that to be taken away.
Editor’s Note: In addition, 115 businesses in the state have signed a letter opposing a publica land sale.
KK: Ok, so what was in the original bill, and why did it rile people up?
DFA: Originally, all BLM and USFS lands were potentially up for grabs with very few exemptions, and the order was to sell twice as much.
The Wilderness Society, a national environmental advocacy group, created a map outlining what land the original bill could’ve included. It showed green swaths representing USFS and orange swaths representing BLM. If your social feed was anything like mine, you’ve seen this map.
So I called up Jordan Schreiber, who grew up in Jackson, but now spends most of her time in D.C. working as the government relations director for the Wilderness Society.
Jordan Schreiber: We would love nothing more than for Senator Lee to put out a map that reflects his perception of this language, but he's not going to do that because he knows it will be unpopular. So this is our best guess based on the bill text.
DFA: However, as we’ve discussed, the map is really a moot resource now. The proposed bill is now limited to BLM.
KK: Right, the updated version takes off the table any land that’s not within five miles of a “population center.” Are there any other limitations?
CT: There are. Like the land couldn’t include wildlife refuges, designated wilderness, recreation areas and no land where there’s an active grazing permit or lease – which in Wyoming is a lot of BLM parcels.
Also, the BLM needs to consult with the governor, nearby local governments and tribes about the “suitability of the area for residential development.”
KK: Who can nominate land to be sold and what do they need to do?
DFA: Well, first anyone can nominate a parcel, but there are some stipulations. They have to explain how they might want to use the land and how it will help with local housing needs. Supporters say this would be super helpful with affordable housing in the West. But the bill only says “affordability” once, and people are worried the phrasing is too open-ended. Like, it leaves open the possibility of mansions, golf courses and pickle ball courts in places like the Red Desert. Here’s Schreiber again.
JS: There's no guardrails and there's no preconditions for affordability or really enforcement for the housing fee.
DFA: The parcels of land are then reviewed, approved or denied, by the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Interior (DOI). If it’s approved, the parcel would go up for sale at fair market value.
Now, some groups analyzing the text say that verbiage is squishy, that it doesn’t ensure it’ll be sold at fair market value. In Teton County, fair market value is only really suitable to the uber wealthy. Here’s Schreiber again.
JS: The only people that will be able to afford these parcels are tech billionaires and developers.
DFA: The overwhelming majority of the money made off the sales would go to fund the federal government, like the U.S. Treasury. Supporters say it’ll combat the national deficit. But critics say it wouldn’t be that much money and very little would be reinvested in local communities.
The bill says 5% goes to local governments and 10% goes to the BLM.
KK: Wait a second, what if the state, local government or tribes don’t like it?
CT: Well, the DOI Secretary could provide them the option to buy the land first. But it isn’t required. Also, tribes aren’t specifically mentioned in this section.
It’s also really important to remember, everything that we just talked about would have to happen within five years.
KK: Has this ever happened before?
DFA: Not really. At least not like this. Wyoming has floated the idea of taking over federal land before. But it’s never gone anywhere. Also, it would just cost the state way too much money.
Editor’s Note: The state legislature commissioned a report to look into this in 2016. It found it wasn’t economical for the state to absorb all federal land.
KK: So, how are Wyoming’s U.S. delegates responding to all of this?
CT: U.S. Rep. Hariett Hageman has supported it.
Remember that Wilderness Society map we mentioned earlier? Hageman spoke recently at a state legislative meeting and said people are blowing this way out of proportion. Rep. Mike Schmid (R-La Barge) pushed back, though with a question to Hageman.
Mike Schmid: My question for you is would our federal delegation be able to inject some language into this bill to specifically, or put my constituents minds at ease, that all of this federal land that looks like it's identified be excluded?
Harriet Hageman: So there are no lands that have been identified and that's that's some of the misinformation that is out there.The actual purpose of this bill is to identify the lands.
CT: She pointed to empty BLM lots in Las Vegas as an example of the types of lands the bill would target. She said there are similar spots in Wyoming.
HH: We've got a situation with Kemmerer. We need affordable housing there because of the development. It's largely surrounded by BLM lands. This bill would target a 40-acre parcel so that you could develop it and provide affordable housing. This would all be done in conjunction with the states and the local communities and the stakeholders and Indian tribes and everything else.
DFA: We reached out to Senators John Barrasso and Cynthia Lummis and they didn’t respond by airtime. But Wyomingites have shared the letters they’ve gotten back from the senators, which say they support federal land sales when it serves the interest of the local communities.
KK: What are more local politicians saying?
CT: This is interesting, because there was a lot of traction this year to pass a resolution calling for Congress to give Wyoming all federal public lands in the state.
Rep. Robert Warff (R-Evanston) echoed that push during the recent legislative committee hearing.
Robert Warff: One of the things that amazes me, I've always struggled to understand, why the residents of this state would rather let the federal government have control over our federal lands than have that transferred to the state.
CT: Now, state lawmakers are still pretty mixed, and they’re hearing a lot from constituents. Here’s Rep. Schmid.
MS: What they're nervous about is the big portions of our public lands are not specifically, or what we can find are not specifically, mentioned as not for sale.
DFA: We should also mention Gov. Mark Gordon also said he supports the measure if there’s careful state input.
Editor’s Note: So far, at least three Wyoming counties — Park, Sublette and Teton — have passed resolutions or sent letters to Barrasso and Lummis urging them to secure exemptions like the one granted to Montana.
KK: Well, what are the next steps for the proposal?
DFA: We’re still waiting to see if the updated proposal will pass muster with the Senate rules and make it into the One Big Beautiful Bill. The Senate is trying to pass that bill before July 4th. If it does, then it will be in the House’s hands.
KK: As of midday Friday, five GOP members in the House said they won’t vote for the One Big Beautiful Bill if the public land sell-off is included. That’d be enough to sink the whole bill in the House. Notably, Wyoming’s Rep. Hageman wasn’t one of the five.
