Actions Speak Louder Than Words

A Senate Committee addition to the One Big Beautiful Bill Act proves Republican are no more “conservationists” than their counterparts are “environmentalists.”

“We get the politicians we deserve and the environment we deserve.” -Michael Frome

If you go to Jackson Hole expecting to get the real Wyoming experience, you may be disappointed to find more southern California hot girls wearing Bebe and Pink sweatpants sporting French manicures with their cowboy hats, and men wearing khakis and golf windbreakers, than boots, denim and what you expect to see in the Cowboy state. The same is true if you go to Miami Beach thinking you’re going to get the real experience of old Florida.

Park County, Wyoming, on the other hand, has no such pretenses. It is rural, rugged, and unspoiled by coastal real estate developers. In Cody, its county seat, there’s a rodeo every night from June 1^st through the end of August. European sports cars with California license plates stick out like a sore thumb. Here, four-wheel drive trucks (many of them diesel) rule the dusty roads.

When in Wyoming, you’re not surprised if you see celebrities like Kanye West and Kim Kardashian in Jackson Hole. As a general rule, Hollywood celebrities don’t exactly flock to Park County. Locals like it that way.

So it was a bit unexpected when Kanye West bought the 3,800 acre Monster Lake Ranch about ten miles south of Cody for a cool $8 million in 2019. Suffice to say, the look below is one you expect to see in Jackson Hole, but in Cody? Not so much.

Did NOT find those getups in Cody! | X

When the pair divorced in 2021, West’s Wyoming ranch quickly went on the market. We suspect you would have had to work (hard) to find folks in Park County who were distraught over that prospect. It is not clear whether West still owns the property (or another ranch he purchased nearby).

You might not like it when Hollywood’s ostentatious elite buy property in your unspoiled corner of rural Wyoming. But when it involves the sale of a private ranch between two parties, there’s nothing you can do about it.

But what if the federal government opened up millions of acres of federal land for sale, including in National Forests, under the auspices of “housing need,” when the real reason was to raise money because the Charlaticians™ in Congress won’t cut spending and force the federal government to live within its means. Would that get your attention?

We hope so. Because the language emerging from the Senate’s sausage making exercise with the House’s recently passed “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” does exactly that.

How bad is it? What are the practical limitations? And what does this really tell us about Democrat and Republican politicians in Washington, DC? Get out your calf rope, Senate Republicans need to be hog tied.

We begin the story by noting the effected states. The text emerging from the Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee (Senate ENRC) mandates the disposal of millions of acres of federal land in 11 western states: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Senator Mike Lee (a Republican representing Utah) authored the language.

Newsweek described the ostensible purpose:

“The intended use of the land, according to Lee, is to promote housing development and support local economic growth — though no specific development plan has been released. "We're opening underused federal land to expand housing, support local development and get Washington, D.C. out of the way of communities that are just trying to grow," Lee said in a video message shared with the bill's release.”

An embedded GIS map in the Newsweek article shows the western federal lands theoretically available for disposal under the Senate’s version of the bill. The acreage is massive across the effected states.

Two days before Newsweek’s article, The Wilderness Society described what emerged from the Senate ENRC this way (emphasis in original):

“..Senate Republicans have unveiled their own poisonous version of the bill that will fund President Trump’s agenda—a bill that calls for the outright sale of public lands as a key element.

The provision in question mandates the disposal of between 2 million and 3 million acres of lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service across 11 states.

Alarmingly, the provision contains very limited exemptions—Wilderness Study Areas, Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, roadless areas and critical habitat are all considered eligible for sale. Based on those limited restrictions, more than 250 million acres of public lands will be eligible to be sold to "any interested party."

A media resources summary and analysis published by The Wilderness Society includes a link to the purported text. An updated version followed on June 16 (found here). Below we summarize this version of the provisions.

We begin with the questions of how much, by whom, and where. The Secretary of the Interior acting for Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Secretary of Agriculture for U.S. Forest Service (USFS) are each mandated to dispose of not less than 0.50 percent and not more than 0.75 percent of BLM and National Forest Service lands in the 11 designated states under the Senate ENRC text . The Wilderness Society calculated the available acreage by state as follows:

Source: The Wilderness Society

A June 5^th post by the National Association of Counties (NACo) noted that BLM has already identified hundreds of thousands of acres near small towns that could be used for housing (emphasis added):

“Eyeing opportunities to spur development of affordable housing, the Trump administration sees low-hanging fruit in the country’s federal land inventory.

A memorandum of understanding between the departments of Interior and Housing and Urban Development has spurred progress toward identifying and streamlining the transfer of that land to state and local governments and nonprofit housing developers.

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has identified 535,000 acres that it manages within four miles of the municipal limits of towns with at least 5,000 residents. Those acres would be eligible for transfer.”

The Senate ENRC’s text requires that within 60 days of enactment and every 60 days thereafter, the Secretaries must publish a list of BLM and National Forest Service tracts they have identified or have been nominated for disposal. Within 30 days of enactment, the Secretaries must publish a notice soliciting nominations of tracts of BLM and National Forest System land for disposal from “interested parties”, “including” States and units of local government. Clearly, “interested parties” was intended to be something broader than merely States and local governments.

Before their selections for disposal, the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture “shall consult with the Governor of the state in which the tract is located regarding the suitability of the area for residential development.” The choice of words does not inspire confidence that BLM and USFS will give Governors much more than a drive-by shout.

The text requires the Secretaries to similarly “consult with” local government (cities/towns/counties) and Indian Tribes. It requires that the Secretaries give “priority consideration” to the disposal of tracts that:

(A) are nominated by States or units of local governments;

(B) are adjacent to existing developed areas;

(C) have access to existing infrastructure; or

(D) are suitable for residential housing.

If there is any good news, it is that the following areas are all explicitly taken off the table for disposal in the Senate ENRC text:

• National Monuments

• National Recreation Areas

• Components of the National Wilderness Preservation System

• Components of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System

• Components of the National Trails System

• National Conservation Areas

• Units of the National Wildlife Refuge System

• Units of the National Fish Hatchery System

• Units of the National Park System

• National Preserves

• National Seashores or National Lakeshores

• National Historic Sites

• National Memorials

• National Battlefields, National Battlefield Parks, National Battlefield Sites, or National Military Parks

• National Historical Parks

How will BLM and the U.S. Forest Service conduct these mandated disposals? Per the Senate ENRC text (emphasis ours):

“The Secretary concerned may dispose of tracts of covered Federal land under this section by competitive sale, auction, or other methods designed to secure not less than fair market value for the tracts of covered Federal land conveyed.”

What “other methods” might be possible? We’re afraid to ask.

You might think that Charlaticians brash enough to try to pull this off would absolutely give States and local governments the right of first refusal. But you would be wrong:

“The Secretary concerned may provide a State or unit of local government in which a tract of covered Federal land is located a right of first refusal to purchase the applicable tract of covered Federal land.”

The Senate ENRC text theoretically restricts the use of the disposed acreage. It requires that disposed land “shall be used solely for the development of housing or to address associated infrastructure to support local housing needs.”

Imagine this scenario. Secretary Burgum (sheepishly apologizing to Trump supporters): “Uh, sorry Cody and Park County!!! Kanye West, Blackrock, the Saudi Sovereign Wealth Fund, and a major Chinese real estate developer all outbid you for that tract!”

Senator Lee and the Energy and Natural Resources Committee limited the number of tracts any person may obtain in a single sale, but made an exception (emphasis ours):

“a person may not purchase more than 2 tracts of covered Federal land in any 1 sale under this section unless the person owns land surrounding the tracts of covered Federal land to be sold under this section.”

Additional language requires restrictive covenants on the land for the use as nominated by a nominee or listed when the Secretary identified the land for disposal. We surmise “associated infrastructure to support local housing needs” is an envelope that will be pushed, and ultimately defined by courts should the Senate ENRC’s language somehow survive.

Neither Secretary may dispose of any tract of federally protected land or land that is subject to valid existing rights (grazing, mining, etc.). But could those tracts subject to valid existing rights under leases be optioned to developers after acquiring adjacent tracts from BLM or USFS?

All this begs a fair question: Did Senate Republicans just create the next Hollywood elite, Silicon Valley, Cyber Bro, and Wall Street land rush? (We were going to put “knowingly” before “create.” We leave you to ponder).

What happens to the money received from these land sales? The proceeds are to be deposited in the Treasury General Fund, except 5% of proceeds go to the local government with jurisdiction over the tract, and another 5% to the disposing agency (BLM or USFS) for deferred maintenance backlog in the state where the tract is sold. The 5% to local government can only be used for what each Secretary determines as essential infrastructure directly supporting housing development, or other associated infrastructure to support local housing needs.

Montana's Ryan Zinke, a Republican who led the Interior Department during Trump’s first term and now serves in Congress, worked to successfully remove a similar provision from the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” before it passed the House and moved to the Senate. "This was my San Juan Hill; I do not support the widespread sale or transfer of public lands," Zinke told The New York Times. Montana is conspicuously absent from the list of BLM and USFS land disposals.

According to the NACO article cited above, at a recent conference in South Dakota, acting BLM Director John Raby said the parameters for relevant BLM disposals would realistically limit sales to about two one-thousandths of a percent of available BLM land. Raby said that BLM will release a map of eligible parcels soon.

The Senate ENRC text opens up a Pandora’s Box. Lands that should be left alone as conservation lands go up for grabs for residential housing developers when states and local governments can’t pay top dollar.

What could possibly go wrong? Blackrock and the PE vultures? Foreign investors? The possibilities are endless.

There are likely some practical limitations should the Senate ENRC text survive in the final bill Trump signs. Much of the 258 million acres The Wilderness Society identified in their table are remote, and a lot is very remote relative to nearby towns.

For example, the land in this picture, technically included in the Newsweek and The Wilderness GIS maps, is about 30 road miles into the outback from the nearest town of less than 1,000 people. A soggy rain makes it impassible for anything but four-wheel drive trucks. The nearest power lines are far away. Nobody would target this area for housing because of the difficulty and cost of development compared to land closer to the nearest town.

Let it be

An analysis last month by Bozeman, MT-based independent non-profit researcher Headwaters Economics found that (emphasis added):

“Less than 2% of the 181 million acres of Forest Service operational and Department of Interior land included this analysis are close enough to towns with housing needs to be practical for development—around 2.4 million acres. Most of this land is concentrated in a handful of western states—primarily Nevada, Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Utah—and the vast majority of the land is managed by DOI. Forest Service lands offer even fewer options, with only three states (Arizona, Utah, and Oregon) having more than 5,000 acres near towns.”

Using a density of .66 homes per acre and avoiding areas that Headwaters deemed high wildfire risk, the non-profit found that fewer than 700,000 homes could be built on federal lands near western towns and cities with housing needs.

On the other hand, the economic impact of outdoor recreation to the effected Western states is non-trivial. In Wyoming and Montana outdoor recreation accounts for over 4% of state GDP. In November 2024, the Bureau of Economic Analysis found that the outdoor recreation industry contributed gross output of $1.17 trillion, and its value added $640 billion to the U.S. economy represented 2.4% of GDP for 2023.

We close by noting the pittance that these public land sales are projected to have relative to America’s $2 trillion annual budget deficit and its $36 trillion federal debt, which both parties bear responsibility for enabling over the last twenty-five years. According to the Senate ENRC FAQ sheet on the legislation, the land disposals are estimated to generate $5 to $10 billion during the 2025-2034 period (only about $500 million to $1 billion annually). The stupidity of trading federal conservation lands for such a rounding error is unconscionable. Doing so under the pretense of relieving housing shortages in western states makes matters even worse.

Senate Republicans’ idea to monetize federal lands under the auspices of housing shortages and housing inflation is as ignorant (if not malevolent) as Congressional Democrats pretending that a $36 trillion advanced industrial economy can run on Spinning Green Crucifixes™, sun catchers and hydroelectric dams. Yet here we are.

If Democrats were actual “environmentalists” they would have rallied behind nuclear energy long before their recent tepid change of heart. And if Republicans were actual “conservationists” they would not dare propose what Senator Mike Lee and the Senate ENRC jammed into the House’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

Actions speak louder than words. Disregard what they say, pay attention to what they do.