Latest news with #federalland
E&E News
6 days ago
- Politics
- E&E News
Trump admin to ink deals with states for forest management
The Forest Service has launched an ambitious goal of handing states more responsibility for federal land, agency Chief Tom Schultz said Wednesday. Speaking to a national forest policy conference in Washington, Schultz outlined the Trump administration's vision of a Forest Service with a narrower public mission that relies more heavily on state governments to keep the 193-million-acre system healthy and less at risk of out-of-control wildfires. 'I see a different role for the states, maybe, going forward,' Schultz said, pointing to the administration's recent 20-year agreement with Montana to allow the state to manage 200,000 acres of national forest for timber, wildfire and other priorities. Advertisement Gone are the days, Schultz said, when states with limited budgets were viewed as subservient to the federal government.
Washington Post
09-07-2025
- Politics
- Washington Post
How conservatives beat back a Republican sell-off of public lands
To his surprise, Patrick Payne had ended up in a group text with Mike Lee. Payne is a conservative Idaho outdoorsman who voted for President Donald Trump. Lee is a Republican senator from Utah. The group was organized by an acquaintance Payne made online, and the topic was home schooling. But Payne saw an opportunity to directly challenge Lee on his proposal to sell up to 3.3 million acres of federal land in 11 Western states for the construction of affordable housing. He texted the senator that Washington was 'better than BlackRock,' the global investment firm. Lee's response — that he'd 'trust anyone owning that land more than the U.S. government' — floored Payne. Several days later, he posted a screenshot of the exchange on X.
Yahoo
09-07-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Are national parks really at risk? Sen. Mike Lee pushes back on campaign against public land sales
WASHINGTON — Sen. Mike Lee and Rep. Celeste Maloy are defending a proposal to sell federally owned land after environmental groups launched a campaign against the proposal, included in the Senate version of President Donald Trump's tax bill. The groups accuse congressional Republicans of trying to siphon off millions of acres of federal land to help pay for Trump's tax cuts. But Lee and Maloy, both Utah Republicans, say maps circulated by groups like the Wilderness Society are misleading, and come from national groups that don't understand the local issues at play. The decades-long debate over whether to sell off federally controlled land was reignited last week after Lee drafted language requiring 11 Western states to sell between 2.2 million and 3.3 million acres over the next five years. The proposal is tucked into a larger bill of energy-related provisions meant to offset trillions of dollars in proposed tax cuts in Trump's reconciliation package. The proposal has prompted pushback, mostly beyond the handful of states it directly affects. Public land advocates and outdoor groups have criticized the legislation — even attracting the attention of some celebrities, such as actress Sydney Sweeney who said this week that public lands 'belong to all Americans, and it is the patriotic duty of every citizen to resist this scheme.' Lee rejected that characterization, responding in a post on X: 'Great—if federal land is an unmitigated good, then every state should have an equal share of it.' The online discourse has resulted in conflicting interpretations about what the legislation would do — or wouldn't do, in some cases. Here's a breakdown of the basic components of the bill and how different groups are responding. Under the bill, 11 states would be required to sell anywhere between 0.5% and 0.75% of all Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service lands, which could total up to a maximum of 1.5% in some cases. The legislation specifically applies to Utah as well as Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Washington, and Wyoming. About 63% of Utah's land is owned by the federal government, the most of any state in the country aside from Nevada. The federal government owns more than 80% of the land in Nevada. By comparison, the federal government owns just 0.3% of the land in Connecticut and Iowa, the least among the states. The bill would require the land be used only for 'the development of housing or to address associated community needs,' although it does leave that interpretation up to the secretaries of Interior and Agriculture. Lee has said there will be updates to the legislation that would further restrict what lands can be sold, mandating that those being sold by the U.S. Forest Service are within two miles of a population center and those being sold by the Bureau of Land Management are within five miles. The Utah senator notes lands with existing permits for grazing, mining, mineral leases, or more would also be exempt. The bill outlines 15 categories of protected land that cannot be sold for housing purposes. These include national monuments, national historical parks, recreation areas, conservation areas, units of the National Wildlife Refuge System, units of the National Fish Hatchery System, national trails, national memorials, battlefield sites and military parks, among other things. However, conservation groups such as the Wilderness Society have circulated maps depicting lands they believe would fall under the bill's definition of public lands. The map shows popular hiking trails, ski resorts and grazing areas the group says would be at risk under Lee's proposal. Those lands stretch across the Wasatch Front to include Big Cottonwood Canyon, Little Cottonwood Canyon and Parleys Canyon. Lee has pushed back against those characterizations, with his office arguing the Wilderness Society map is not an official government document and is 'speculative and misleading.' Rep. Celeste Maloy, R-Utah, who led a similar public lands sales proposal in the House earlier this year, also rejected the Wilderness Society map, warning it's part of an agenda from a 'national group that may have no understanding of Utah.' 'People see that map and they get panicky,' Maloy told the Deseret News in an interview. 'I want people in Utah to be more thoughtful in how they respond to maps on the internet, because that map isn't part of any legislation.' 'Not every acre of public land is a national park. The vast majority of it is not,' Maloy added. 'We have a lot of sagebrush ground that is adjacent to cities and towns where we do have infrastructure needs, and we've got to be able to have serious conversations about how we handle the real needs of communities in Utah. It can't always devolve into loud rhetoric about parks and access.' Instead, the Utah lawmakers have maintained the bill does not list any lands 'for sale' but instead creates a nomination process to purchase lands currently owned by the government. The legislation excludes specific acreage as well as any maps to adhere to the strict Senate rules of reconciliation. 'When this bill puts land in the category of eligibility for sale, it doesn't mean for sale,' Lee told conservative radio host Glenn Beck on Thursday. 'It just means there's a process by which it could be transferred.' The process for selling off land would begin shortly after the bill is passed. The legislation requires the secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture to solicit nominations from interested parties within 30 days of passage. The bill does not specify who qualifies as an 'interested party' nor does it have restrictions. The lands under consideration must meet certain criteria, such as being adjacent to existing developed areas, having access to existing infrastructure, is suitable for resident housing, and contains isolated tracts that are inefficient to manage. After that initial solicitation, the secretaries must publish lists of land for sale every 60 days until they meet the required acreage of lands to sell in each state. However, the provision would require the interior secretary to consult with state and local governments as well as any Indian tribes before facilitating any sort of sale, according to the bill. That way, aides noted, it created a 'public participant process.' The bill also carves out what is known as 'first right of refusal,' which would give state and local officials an early opportunity to make a first offer if they so choose. When drafting her initial amendment, Maloy proposed selling about 11,000 acres of public lands in Utah's Washington and Beaver counties, which was drafted upon request from county officials. That proposal was ultimately removed from the tax bill amid pushback from some Republicans as well as concerns it did not adhere to strict reconciliation rules. Still, Maloy says the arguments influencing the original amendment still stand: Local leaders should decide whether to sell off public lands. 'Every event I have, especially political events, somebody asks, 'What are you going to do to get us more control of our public land?'' Maloy told the Deseret News. 'I think there's a big appetite for that in Utah. People want it to be thoughtful. They want more access, they want more control. They want more of a voice.' Lee's language is separate from Maloy's, although the Utah senator did work with the congresswoman when drafting his own version, he told the Deseret News. The proposal to sell off public lands is still an uphill battle in Congress, even with Trump's support on the issue. While some conservatives are supportive of the effort to sell federally owned lands to pay for Trump's signature tax cuts, other Republicans in Western states have come out against the proposal — particularly those in Montana. Both Republican Sens. Steve Daines and Tim Sheehy of Montana told the Deseret News they oppose the sale of public lands. However, they both noted separately they were pleased to see Montana exempted from Lee's proposal, which the Utah senator did after consulting with the pair. However, Rep. Ryan Zinke, R-Mont., has gone even further to say he would outright oppose any reconciliation package that includes the sale of public lands, possibly putting the bill at risk. 'I don't yield to pressure, only higher principle,' Zinke said in a statement. 'I have said from day one I would not support a bill that sells public lands. I am still a no on the Senate reconciliation bill that sells public lands. We did our job in the House. Let's get it finished.'
Yahoo
05-07-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Peabody Energy (BTU) Soars After Support From Tax and Spending Bill
The share price of Peabody Energy Corporation (NYSE:BTU) surged by 13.19% between June 26 and July 3, 2025, putting it among the Energy Stocks that Gained the Most This Week. A coal miner in a thick protective suit and helmet drilling for coal under bright lights. Peabody Energy Corporation (NYSE:BTU) is a leading coal producer, providing essential products for the production of affordable, reliable energy and steel. Peabody Energy Corporation (NYSE:BTU) soared after the American coal sector received a boost this week following the passage of President Trump's sweeping tax and spending bill, which mandates at least 4 million additional acres of federal land be made available for mining. Moreover, the legislation allows producers of metallurgical coal, like Peabody, to claim an advanced manufacturing production tax credit available for critical minerals. In addition, the 'Big Beautiful Bill' has also reduced the royalties that coal companies must pay the government for mining on public lands. While we acknowledge the potential of BTU as an investment, we believe certain AI stocks offer greater upside potential and carry less downside risk. If you're looking for an extremely undervalued AI stock that also stands to benefit significantly from Trump-era tariffs and the onshoring trend, see our free report on the best short-term AI stock. READ NEXT: 10 Best Nuclear Energy Stocks to Buy Right Now and Disclosure: None.
Forbes
24-06-2025
- Business
- Forbes
Selling Federal Land Will Benefit Future Generations Most
Congress is considering selling a small share of its land holdings. The proposal is a "no-brainer" ... More that would unluck development and help address the nation's severe housing crisis. America's 640 million acres of federal land are often romanticized as an untouched birthright, but birthrights can be squandered when assets are left idle. The Senate's 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' is the latest budget reconciliation proposal working its way through Congress, and it proposes that a small slice of federal holdings finally be put to productive use. While the proposal is controversial, future Americans will thank us for it if it is adopted. Unlocking land for development today means creating the neighborhoods, schools, and local economies our children and grandchildren will depend on. How we got here The House cleared its own version of the reconciliation package in May. The Senate now faces a July 4 deadline to pass a companion bill that keeps most of Trump's 2017 tax cuts while trimming federal spending. The Senate bill directs the Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service to auction between 2 million and 3.3 million acres over the next five years, chiefly for housing and related community development infrastructure. Although that is less than one percent of federal real estate, more than 250 million acres are technically 'eligible' if local officials nominate parcels. In California alone as many as 16 million acres lie within eligibility maps drawn by conservation groups. What the land would become Supporters, led by Sen. Mike Lee (R‑UT), envision new subdivisions popping up around fast‑growing western towns where developable land is scarce and home prices are high. Critically, the land in question is not Yosemite Valley or Arches National Park. National parks, congressionally designated wilderness areas, national monuments, and national wildlife refuges are excluded from consideration. Parcels must lie near existing roads or towns. Some are BLM tracts that already host utility corridors or cattle allotments. The bill text requires most proceeds, estimated at $5 to $10 billion, go to the Treasury, with 5 percent kicked back to local governments. The political backlash None of that nuance has quieted the internet. Bipartisan opposition to the measure emerged quickly. The #KeepItPublic hashtag trended on X soon after the bill's release. Hunting‑and‑fishing groups such as the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership criticized the plan, sending a letter to Congress and urging their members to follow suit. Also telling is survey data. One recent poll from a conservation group found that 71% of those surveyed opposed selling public lands to the highest bidder. On paper, at least, public opinion appears to lean against privatization. But what is the land doing now? The land under consideration for sale consists largely of federally managed acreage overseen by the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service across 11 western states. The bill opens the door to selling a mix of land types, including roadless forests, wildlands, lands near developed areas, and other BLM and Forest Service holdings. An amendment also removes prior exemptions for lands with active grazing permits, meaning areas currently used for livestock operations may be considered. The status quo, where vast tracts remain available only for low-fee grazing, utilities, or recreation, locks in modest public returns. Private development, meanwhile, would add value through housing, infrastructure, and other productive enterprises, creating long-term benefits beyond today's much more limited uses. Idle land today means limited opportunity tomorrow. But by enabling growth now, we lay the groundwork for vibrant communities to flourish. Development ensures that future generations are not priced out of homeownership simply because we refused to build. When land is sold and developed, new housing triggers construction work, retail build‑outs, and decades of property‑tax revenue that rises with home values. According to Commerce Department modelling, each $1 million in new earnings ripples into roughly $2.08 million in regional income once multiplier effects are counted. Wages fund mortgages, mortgages finance more construction, and higher densities support more businesses. The result is rising living standards and economic growth. Future generations will inherit not just plenty of land, but the prosperity that comes from putting that land to smart, productive use. The bottom line America's early leaders routinely converted federal acreage into farms, towns, and railroads that drove two centuries of growth. The current proposal is tiny by historical standards, yet it could ease today's housing crunch and unlock compounding economic returns that dwarf the status quo's trickle from grazing fees. Freezing all public land solves nothing. It merely guarantees that the housing shortage, and its attendant cost‑of‑living crisis, worsens. Land itself is not a birthright, and not all public lands are pristine wilderness or national treasures. Preserving every scrub‑land acre in perpetuity may feel righteous, but it risks passing along an economy less dynamic and less affordable than the one we inherited. If we want our children to thrive, we must make the land work for them, not leave it fenced off in economic stagnation. Thoughtful, targeted privatization offers a smarter legacy for future generations.
