The Mountaineers
Update: We were glad to see public lands sales stripped out of the final version of the reconciliation bill that passed the House. Support from the outdoor community and efforts by Rep. Ryan Zinke (MT-01) and the congressional Public Lands Caucus were instrumental in securing this near-term win. Unfortunately, other harmful public lands provisions were left in the final House bill, and public lands sales could crop up again as the Senate considers the reconciliation package in the coming months.
As a lover of public lands, it can be disheartening to read the news lately. Recent actions by Congress and the administration represent a mounting threat to our shared lands and waters - places where we find connection to the natural world. The largely partisan support for these harmful policies - which include public lands sell-offs - is built on the short-sighted premise that public lands are solely items on a balance sheet to be leveraged for financial gain through privatization and development.
The Mountaineers believes in the many benefits and intrinsic value of conserved public lands, and is committed to keeping public lands in public hands. Things might feel grim, but our voices as outdoor enthusiasts do matter. Now is a critical time for the recreation community to take action for a sustainable and thriving future for our federal public lands.
Read on to learn more about current threats to public lands and the growing movement to stand against these harmful attacks. Before your next spring outdoor adventure, take a few moments to advocate for keeping public lands public by using our action tool to share a personalized message with your members of Congress.
Current Threats to Federal Public Lands
Members of Congress are seeking to utilize federal public lands as a way to raise revenue, putting these lands at risk of transfer or development. One of the ways they’re looking to do this is through the House reconciliation bill. Reconciliation is a process that streamlines the passage of certain budget legislation. The Mountaineers supports balanced use on public lands and waters, but there's a lot of bad stuff for public lands in the draft reconciliation bill that could change the future of how these lands are managed. In our view, here are some of the most problematic provisions for public lands.
Public Lands Sell-offs
Without advanced review or debate, lawmakers passed an amendment during a late-night House Natural Resources Committee hearing on reconciliation bill provisions, that would sell off nearly 500,000 acres of public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Forest Service in Nevada and Utah. These land sales are part of a larger effort to transfer public lands in the West out of federal control and prepare them for potential development like housing and infrastructure. Revenue generated from these sales would likely be used to pay for tax cuts and new federal spending.
The direct attempt to sell off public lands through the House reconciliation bill is currently limited to public lands in Nevada and Utah. This move would set a harmful precedent, though, which could trigger a paradigm shift in how federal public lands are managed across the country, including in Washington state.
Undermining Public Input
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) protects the public’s right to review and weigh in on potential environmental impacts of federal projects and other agency actions. We were disappointed to see efforts to undermine NEPA in the House reconciliation bill. One particular provision will allow developers to pay to expedite environmental reviews, bypass judicial review, and skirt around public input. These unprecedented actions would set up a pay-to-play model, giving a rubber stamp to potential environmental harm and undercutting public review of projects. Another way the bill undermines public input is a provision that would allow for long-term resource extraction contracts to timber companies for periods of up to 20 years. Moves to undermine NEPA and short-circuit public review would send federal permitting down the wrong path.
Land Manager Funding Cuts
The bill also includes deep funding cuts to our federal public lands management agencies. These cuts are rescissions to the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) funding that the recreation community helped secure in 2022. Land managers have leveraged IRA funding to invest in nature-based climate solutions and support the ecological health and resilience of public lands.
After waves of agency workforce reductions, further cuts to agency staff and funding would continue to disrupt land managers’ ability to carry out the important work of conserving landscapes and managing sustainable outdoor access. The current political landscape makes it difficult to reverse course on the path of chronic underfunding of these agencies, but minimizing further cuts will help salvage critically needed staff and resources, stabilizing the land manager workforce during a turbulent time.
What does this mean for federal lands in Washington state?
We’ve come together with our conservation partners to prepare for more direct attacks to Washington’s federally managed public lands. In the coming months, we may see more coordinated attempts to transfer or develop BLM and Forest Service lands in Washington state. This could take the form of increased mineral extraction, attempts to roll back Roadless Area protections, or attempts to directly sell off land to generate revenue for the federal government. When potential threats become more clear, we’ll share how you can advocate against more direct threats to Washington’s public lands. The best way to show your support for Washington’s public lands right now is by standing with us against the harmful public lands provisions in the House reconciliation bill.
Keeping Public Lands in Public Hands
So that’s (some of) the bad news. Here’s some good news: leaders in Congress and the recreation community are coming together to support the landscapes and outdoor experiences they cherish in a bipartisan fashion. One of the efforts they’re coalescing around is a newly formed congressional Public Lands Caucus. The caucus’s goal is to foster bipartisan support and collaboration from representatives across the country to stand against attacks on our federally-managed lands and ensure sustainable recreation access. We are grateful to Representative Gabe Vasquez (NM-02) and Representative Zinke (MT-01) for starting the caucus. We also appreciate Washington representatives Dan Newhouse (WA-04) and Emily Randall (WA-06) for joining the caucus in its early days.
Representatives Vasquez and Zinke have also introduced legislation called the Public Lands in Public Hands Act. This act would prevent the sale or transfer of certain public lands to private interests, mandate congressional review of sales of large swaths of public lands, and ensure that potential loss of outdoor recreation access is considered during federal land transfers. The act likely isn’t on a fast track to passage in this Congress, but it should serve as a valuable organizing tool to build broad bipartisan support for public lands. Our staff will be tracking both of these efforts and looking for ways to leverage our community’s passion for public lands to support these initiatives.
Take Action
We’re likely to see anti-public lands measures continue to play out in Washington, D.C. over the next two years. What’s included in the final reconciliation bill will provide a roadmap for what’s in store for federal public lands moving forward. The House has passed their version, which thankfully doesn’t include any public lands sell-offs. The bill now goes to the Senate for consideration. If lawmakers hear loud and clear that the recreation community opposes public lands sell-offs, NEPA rollbacks, and deep funding cuts for land managers, there’s a chance we can keep some of these harmful provisions out of the final version that passes the full Congress later this year.
Join our advocacy by using our action tool to craft and send a personalized message to your members of Congress sharing your opposition to these threats to public lands. Together, we can raise our collective voice for protecting the “public” in public lands.
