In Utah, 37.4 million acres, an amount larger than the state of Illinois, are owned and managed by the federal government, a total that encompasses roughly 68% of the state, according to a state government website.
In next-door-neighbor Nevada, the figure is roughly 80%.
We doubt many people in Eastern states can appreciate that sort of vastness. Only a small part of that acreage exists as national parks or monuments.
The amount of federally owned land is especially important considering Utah was the nation’s fastest growing state during the past decade. That growth continues. The U.S. Census Bureau said the state experienced a 2% growth in housing units between 2023 and 2024, which was second only to neighboring Idaho.
WalletHub recently reported that Utahns face the 10th highest housing costs, measured as the share of median household income. With buildable land at a premium and with housing costs rising, this national grip on ownership of Utah land, much of which is raw desert, is frustrating.
Sen. Lee’s plan
And yet, Utah Sen. Mike Lee’s proposal to require the government to sell between 2.2 million and 3.3 million acres of such land across 11 different Western states, including Utah, is meeting stiff opposition, not only from environmental groups, but from other Republican lawmakers, as well.
The proposal was to be part of the large budget bill that passed the House by one vote and is now under consideration in the Senate. However, on Monday the Senate parliamentarian ruled the measure could not be included if the bill was to maintain its status as a reconciliation bill, meaning it could pass the Senate with a simple majority.
The Byrd rule
The measure, the parliamentarian said, runs afoul of the Senate’s Byrd rule, which limits “extraneous” provisions not directly related to budget resolution policies.
Lee says changes to his bill are coming. That’s good. At press time, those were not yet made public in any detail. We hope they include clear and unmistakable language that protects important public lands, which Lee has said all along is the intent of his bill.
In its current form, the bill says the land being sold could be used only for “the development of housing or to address associated community needs.” It does not define that restriction, however, leaving that up to the secretaries of Interior and Agriculture. More definition would ease concerns from those fearing poor decision-making.
The Deseret News reported that Lee has said the revised bill would restrict the Bureau of Land Management to selling land within 5 miles of a population center. He has said the land should be connected to existing subdivisions. Forest Service land would not be for sale. “Freedom zones” would be established to protect farmers, ranchers and those who use public lands for recreation.
These are solutions worth considering. Utah is in need of more housing. How does it achieve that? Utah and the nation want to protect sensitive public lands. How do they do that? This is exactly the debate that lawmakers and their constituents should have.
Republican opposition
Lee’s revisions still might not be enough for Republican Montana Rep. Ryan Zinke, who has said he would vote against any reconciliation package that includes a sale of public land, period. That could jeopardize the bill when it returns to the House for a final vote.
Idaho’s two Republican senators, Mike Crapo and Jim Risch, oppose the measure, as well. That narrows the necessary margin for passage in the Senate.
Lee’s original proposal would require 11 states to sell between 0.5% and 0.75% of all Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service lands, with a combined maximum of 1.5% in some cases.
The plan was to use the proceeds to help pay for some of the proposed tax cuts in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, as the budget bill, which runs more than 1,000 pages, is known. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated the bill would add $3 trillion to the national debt over the next decade, in the form that was passed by the House.
That estimate assumes, as the bill does, that those tax cuts will be allowed to expire after President Trump leaves office. If Congress decides to keep the cuts, the estimate rises to $5 trillion.
We are encouraged by any plausible measure that would reduce this relentless, and ultimately disastrous, accumulation of debt. However, the sale of land would provide a one-time reduction of the annual deficit. What the nation needs is more permanent fiscal integrity, most likely through reforms to entitlement programs and a combination of spending cuts and revenue increases.
There is no easy road to such an outcome. However, that does not mean Lee’s proposal lacks merit.
Care is needed
Utahns are right to be concerned any time politicians start talking about the sale of public land. However, if it’s done under narrow conditions that protect scenic and protected areas, and with limits that confine it mainly to an increase in housing for average Utahns, those concerns should be mitigated.
It makes little sense to say no public lands ever should be sold for development in rapidly growing states where the federal government is the largest landowner.