Disaster avoided. For now.
We’re referring to Congressman Mike Lee’s (R-UT) catastrophe of a public land sell-off provision being struck from the budget bill Monday night by Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough, who determined the proposal violates Senate rules.
If you’re unaware (doubtful), the unpopular provision mandated the sale of up to 3.3 million acres of public land, owned by the Forest Service (USFS) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM), over the next five years. The land was to be chosen from a pool of 258 million acres across 11 Western states (including Alaska, minus Montana) — with minimal limitations for how the land could be chosen.
At stake were more than 45,000 climbing routes and boulder problems, nearly 100,000 miles of trails, and 3,405 river miles across the West according to organizations like Outdoor Alliance, The Wilderness Society, and Access Fund.
In the clear?
Not in the least.
Lee has a history of championing attempts to sell federal land or transfer it to states — plus, he has vowed to continue with his proposal in a revised form.
In his words, “I’m doing everything I can to… move this forward. Stay tuned. We’re just getting started.”
His stated alterations so far include removing USFS land from the eligible pool and limiting parcels to within 5 miles of population centers.
Most likely, the threat to climbing areas is greatly reduced.
“[But] we need to see the bill language,” cautions Erik Murdock, the Deputy Director of Programs, Policy and Government Affairs of the Access Fund, whom we talked with about the provision before it was removed.
What to watch out for:
1. The precise language of the bill. Or lack thereof
“The language of the Senate bill was vague. Rather, it was a mandate that required the government to sell off between 0.5% and 0.75% of all BLM and USFS land,” says Murdock.
There were few limitations (lands that were not eligible for sale) listed in the bill. These included historical battlegrounds, national conservation areas, wilderness areas, land with mining claims, etc. Notably, there was no mention of the word “recreation” to delineate land that was not eligible, so trails, campgrounds, hunting grounds, fishing areas, backcountry ski areas, and more were at risk.
Further, while the Senate and the House versions of public land sell-off bills were both cloaked in the rationale of creating more affordable housing, the language of the Senate provision didn’t actually specify “affordable housing,” just housing.
“You don't want to have to trust the intention of Congressional members with bills, you want the language to be explicit so that Congress knows how to enact the bill, and the administration will enact the bill in a clear and expected way,” says Murdock.
“This bill would not have provided that.”
Let’s see if the next one will.
2. Because there will be a next one
“Remember, there was an earlier version in the House that did not identify specific lands but which was ultimately revised and then supported by Rep. Bruce Westerman (R-AR), the Chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee,” says Murdock.
“This version included selloffs for a little more than 500,000 acres of lands in Nevada and Utah, many of which were already identified for disposal in BLM resource management plans. The House bill was ultimately tanked by Rep. Ryan Zinke (R-MT), in order to move the budget bill through the House to the Senate.
“However, this is not the first time we've seen sell-off bills. For example, Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) introduced an amendment to the budget reconciliation package back in 2017 (House Bill 621) to sell off BLM land.”
This ultimately failed as well, but the point remains that some members of Congress are intent on trying to sell public land.
3. There are other provisions to be wary about
For one, President Trump plans to rescind the 2001 “Roadless Rule” which could open road construction and logging in about 30 percent of Forest Service land, or around 58 million acres.
Another provision of the budget bill introduces a “pay to expedite” program under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) that would allow wealthy companies to fast track (read: skirt) environmental reviews. The parliamentarian deemed that part of the proposal doesn’t comply with the reconciliation process, however it’s unclear how the language may change (or whether it will be removed) before the bill gets voted on.
4. How to stay engaged
Four Republican senators said they did not support Lee’s proposal: Steve Daines and Tim Sheehy of Montana, and Jim Risch and Mike Crapo of Idaho. Publicly, that’s it.
If those are not your senators, email and call your representatives to let them know the importance of protecting public lands.
The budget bill only needs a simple majority to pass (because of the particulars of the budget reconciliation process; i.e,. 51 votes are needed vs. the 60 votes that are typical) so every senate vote matters.
“We saw that type of action gain traction in the House and was largely responsible for blocking that provision,” says Murdock.
Also, be sure to sign up for Access Fund’s newsletter and follow their social channels because the organization shares action alerts that make it easy to follow along with updates and message your senator.
“To be clear, the climbing community can have a lot of influence because while these lands are located in the Western states, climbers from all over the country go to visit them,” notes Murdock.
“Regardless of where you’re located, you have a stake in this. Number one, because it's your public lands. And number two, regardless of whether or not you live in the 11 western states, your senator has a vote on this bill. Everyone should rally to make their voice heard on this.”
Thank you again to Dr. Murdock for chatting with us and for all the work that Access Fund does to protect America’s climbing.