UPLA was asked to prepare a briefing for Congress on the importance of volunteerism in helping with the management of our public lands. I shared a personal experience from working with the San Bernardino National Forest through their Adopt a Trail Program to encourage them to expand AAT within National Forests and to implement a similar program within BLM.
UPLA Congressional Hearing Briefing on Volunteerism
Understanding the Lee Amendment
A Balanced Look at the Public Lands Sale Bill
We have all seen the flood of social posts about the impact of the Lee Amendment to the Budget Reconciliation Bill that will make available BLM and Forest Service Land for sale to interested parties. I have personally received more requests for UPLA’s position on this bill than anything in the past. As I have tried to do in the past, UPLA has refrained from commenting on the bill until we had an opportunity to study it carefully. Some of you I’m sure just want a simple answer whether the amendment is good or bad, but the truth is it’s a very complicated issue, so I’m going to lay out some facts and refute some of the misinformation widely disseminated. Once I present the facts, you will have to make your own decision whether it’s good or bad.
It’s important first to understand the Reconciliation bill that it is a part of. Reconciliation is a legislative tool passed by Congress in 1974 by the Democratically controlled Congress that allows passage of budget-related policies with a simple majority in the Senate (51 votes), bypassing the typical 60-vote filibuster threshold. It has been used for decades to pass key legislation by both parties, including all of the following significant legislation:
| Year | Law | Key Provisions |
| 1981 | Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 | Reagan-era spending cuts, tax reforms |
| 1996 | Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act | Welfare reform under Clinton |
| 2001 | Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act | Bush tax cuts |
| 2003 | Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act | More Bush-era tax reductions |
| 2010 | Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act | Final piece of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) |
| 2017 | Tax Cuts and Jobs Act | Major corporate and income tax cuts under Trump |
| 2021 | American Rescue Plan Act | COVID-19 stimulus under Biden |
| 2022 | Inflation Reduction Act | Clean energy, health care, and tax provisions under Biden |
Reconciliation has very explicit rules that the bill must comply with, but the main focus is that the bill must impact federal spending and revenue. The amendment passes this standard because it does these 3 things:
Other explicit rules are that debate time is limited, and amendments must meet very strict rules. After the bill meets all these hurdles, further examination of the bill by applying the Byrd Rule to prohibit “extraneous” provisions, those not directly affecting budget outlays or revenue such as detailed rules or processes. It also must demonstrate a measurable budgetary effect to be allowed, which will be determined by the Congressional Budget Office scoring.
Since it meets these requirements and thus will most likely be a part of the larger Reconciliation Bill, it becomes important to look at whether it will be good or bad for recreation, and to sort out some of the facts from misinformation.
To do this, I arranged a meeting with Staff Member for Senator Lee to get accurate, up to date information from the main sponsor of the bill. Rose Winn, UPLA’s Natural Resource Consultant, and Ben Burr, BlueRibbon Coalition’s Executive Director attended the meeting with me. The following is what I learned:
What is the purpose of the bill? The purpose of the bill is to sell land managed by the US Forest Service (USFS) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to partially fill the need for affordable housing.
Why is the Bill Needed? There are other tools that local governments can utilize to acquire land from the Federal government such as the Recreation and Public Purposes Act (RPP), but they generally require an extremely long time to complete transfers, not years, but decades in some cases. Unfortunately, transfer to accommodate housing needs is not allowed under the RPP. The RPP is a long term process and not a good solution to solve urgent, and what we hope will be, a short term problem.
How much land will be sold, and where is it located? The bill does not require any certain amount of land to be sold, only that it is made disposable for purchase. The requirements are that a total of between .5% and .75% of land separately managed by BLM and USFS will be designated as disposable. Lee’s office confirmed that no official maps have been created at this point, and that introduction of this kind of detail would be prohibited under the Reconciliation Rules. At this point, I have not been able to find a government source that can accurately determine the total land managed for the 11 states, but even extreme estimates published by the Wilderness Society place the total land managed at around 258,000,000 acres. If this is accurate, for all 11 states, the most available for disposal would be 1,935,000 acres (.75%), with the minimum at 1,290,000 (.5%) acres, about the size of Grand Canyon National Park.
It also specifically states in the bill that Federally Protected Land is excluded and specifically excludes 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 Park System, a National Preserve, a National Seashore or National Lakeshore, a National Historic Site, a National Memorial, a National Battlefield, National Battlefield Park, National Battlefield Site, or National Military Park, or a National Historical Park. These exclusions also make the task of determining the extent of land available to be designated eligible for disposal even more challenging. One of our suggestions will be to specifically add Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMAs) to the exclusion list.
How may it benefit Utah? Federal agencies in Utah control almost 64% of the total land in Utah. This creates significant economic hardships for communities, especially for rural counties like Garfield, Daggett, and Wayne Counties which are close to 90% federal lands. This bill will only result in a relatively small transfer of land, but it may potentially assist these communities with housing needs and infrastructure and resulting increased tax revenue.
What are the time limits imposed in the bill? Reconciliation rules require specific time limits so that the economic impact can be accurately scored. The process of identifying lands for disposal must begin within 30 days after enactment of the Act by publishing public notices asking for nominations (requests). These notices must continue every 60 days until the they reach the thresholds between .5% and .75% of the covered (qualifying) land. Final conveyance of lands must be completed within 5 years.
Are the limits applied to each state or to the entire 11 states in total? The bill allows the Secretary(s) to determine the tract totals across all states, not by each state individually.
How are “interested parties” defined by the Act? Interested parties are very broadly defined in the Act because of nondiscrimination requirements associated with Reconciliation, but generally include states and units of local government, but will also include individuals, companies, or organizations.
Will purchasers be required to use the land for it’s stated purpose? Yes, the conveyance of land will include a restrictive covenant that the tract must be used for a period of 10 years. The use clause will prohibit a buyer from buying the land, slow walking any development, and then hoping to sell it for a profit after 10 years or converting it to another purpose. The United States specifically retains the right of enforcement, which most likely would be a reversion returning the land to the Federal government. I asked specifically why the restriction was only for 10 years, and the answer was that for financial impact scoring, it must be specific and limited for proper evaluation under Byrd and CBO. Because of the use requirement, this may be a moot point, but extending this time will be one of our formal recommendations.
How will this bill affect Recreation in general, and specifically OHV recreation? There is always risk associated with any transfer of land, but with the safeguards established in the bill for review by the Governor, local government, and public involvement through NEPA processes this can influence the decisions.
Will the public be able to review and comment on tracts made available for disposal? Is NEPA required? Yes and No, NEPA is not allowed under the Reconciliation process so the passage of the amendment does not require NEPA compliance, but the full NEPA process will be required during the execution of the plan, including both identification and nominations of tracts phases. This will include opportunity for public review and comments.
What other negative impacts might there be from this Amendment? For land use advocates like UPLA, the implementation of this bill will introduce many, perhaps thousands, of NEPA actions that we must monitor and comment on. This will also require your personal diligence when tracts are nominated in your area to review and submit comments. We will do our best to keep you informed as this develops.
What are some other inaccurate assertions being made in social media?
What is the overall process after the bill is enacted into law? The Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture will be the key Federal officials responsible for enacting the law. Here is a summary of the process:
Is the bill in final form? No, this bill process began in February, and there have been many adjustments to the language in the bill, and many drafts circulated for comments by Committee Members and by the Agencies. When copies have been leaked, they seem to be attributed to the date they were discovered, not the date they were drafted. At this point, most of the changes are to meet the Reconciliation or Byrd Act Rules. As mentioned earlier, there are strict rules in reconciliation that prohibit making large scale changes.
Can I voice my opinion or make suggestions about the bill? Yes, we made a few suggestions today during our meeting, and will be submitting them formally in writing. Here are several ways you can make comments:
Final Conclusion
If you’ve read this far, you should be able to see that although this is a relatively short bill, it involves complex issues. One of President Trump’s campaign pledges was to improve home affordability, including opening federal lands, and Senator Lee has promulgated this Amendment as one way to deliver on this pledge.
After review, I believe the Amendment is crafted well enough to provide safeguards for OHV recreation and should not have any serious impacts on OHV or other forms of recreation, but that is just my opinion, and it will largely depend on our efforts to stay on top of NEPA actions as lands are nominated.
UPLA will make formal recommendations to make the bill better, but UPLA will not be taking a position on whether it is good or bad. In coming to your decision, I ask that you carefully consider the sources and veracity of information you use, not the frequency you see memes on social media. Whether you support or oppose this bill is less of an OHV decision, I believe it is more personal about your belief in the intent of the bill and your confidence that it will be well executed.
Thank you for your continued support. I would love to hear your opinions, please send me an email to President@Utahpla.com
Loren Campbell
President
Utah Public Lands Alliance
There has been a lot of discussion about the Maloy-Amodei Amendment recently that will transfer 11,000 acres of BLM land to local governments in Southern Utah and Nevada. The purpose of the land transfer is for either infrastructure improvements for things like water (4372 acres of it is for Washington County Water Conservation District) or to allow local governments to buy land at reduced cost near other urban areas to provide affordable housing.
UPLA has been analyzing some of the parcels for conflicts with recreation, but I can really use your help. Please take a look at the attached maps, and if you see any conflicts with either these purposes or adversely impact recreation, please email mailto:president@utahpla.com with as much detail as possible. At this point, whether you’re for it or against it is not what we’re looking for, I need details of conflicts with current uses or lands. Also attached is the complete text of the amendment if you care to read it.
We already scheduled a meeting with Washington County Water District to discuss their parcels, but I really need your help with others.
Thank you.
Loren Campbell
NV 1 – Fernley Economic Development Act – October 6 2020NV 2 – Southern Nevada Economic Development and Conservation Act Disposal Map – February 6 2025”]UT 2 – City of St George Utah Land Conveyance – March 28 2025UT 3 – Washington County Land Conveyance East Half – April 11 2025UT 4 – Washington County Land Conveyance West Half – April 9 2025
UT 3 – Washington County Land Conveyance East Half – April 11 2025
UT 2 – City of St George Utah Land Conveyance – March 28 2025
”]
NV 2 – Southern Nevada Economic Development and Conservation Act Disposal Map – February 6 2025
At Utah Public Lands Alliance (UPLA), we understand the power of grassroots advocacy in protecting public land access for responsible users — especially off-highway vehicle (OHV) enthusiasts. One of the most direct and impactful ways to make your voice heard is by calling your elected officials in Congress. However, a phone call is only as powerful as the message it delivers. Here are some tips to help you make your calls to Congress more effective, ensuring our collective voice is loud, clear, and impossible to ignore.
Generally, you need to make 3 calls.
You can find your representatives and their contact information easily at https://www.congress.gov/members.
Your call will likely be answered by an Intern. You should expect that they will take your name and address to verify that you are a constituent, then record your position on the subject you are calling on. They will record your position and provide a summary to the Congressional Representative at the end of each day.
If you would like to have an in depth conversation, when you first call ask to speak to the LA (Legislative Analyst) for Natural Resources or Public Lands. Most often you’ll need to leave a message for them to call you back.
Tip: Focus your efforts on your own elected officials. While contacting others may feel useful, Congress prioritizes calls from constituents — the people they were elected to represent.
Before you dial, jot down the main points you want to make. A good call should:
Example Opening: “Hi, my name is [Your Name]. I’m a constituent from [City, ZIP]. I’m calling to ask Senator [Name] to oppose [Bill Number] because it threatens responsible access to our public lands for OHV users like me.”
Staffers taking your call have limited time. Stay focused on the issue:
Remember: You’re representing not just yourself, but our community of responsible public land users.
If you have a personal connection to the issue, share it briefly:
Personal stories make your call more memorable and impactful.
After your call:
Offices are busy — voicemails still count! Leave a clear message with the same points as a live call. Some offices track voicemails as part of their daily reports to the member of Congress.
Your Voice Matters
Every call helps shape the narrative on Capitol Hill. Lawmakers keep tallies of constituent contacts — especially on hot-button issues like public land access. When enough of us call, our message becomes impossible to ignore.
At UPLA, we believe responsible OHV users deserve a seat at the table. Let’s make sure our voices are heard loud and clear. When the time comes, make that call — and make it count.
For updates on pending legislation and action alerts, follow Utah Public Lands Alliance at www.utahpla.com or on our social channels.
Please email me with results from your call , and if you speak to a Legislative Analyst, please provide their contact information to me.
Together, we protect access, but we can’t do it without You!
Loren Campbell
President, Utah Public Lands Alliance
Anytime a new Administration takes control of elected office, it generally is accompanied by significant changes in the policies and practices of that Administration. There is little doubt that President Trump is making sweeping changes, but we have only seen a few signals in his plans about regaining access to our public lands, Interior Secretary Nominee Burgum is still awaiting confirmation, but there are many other very important positions that are still awaiting announcement such as Director of the BLM and Chief of the United States Forest Service, In Utah, there will be a new BLM Utah State Director. I believe it is important to lie out the challenges we’ve had with current policies and be sure our leaders are aware of both what has happened and suggestions for changes going forward.
Today, I will be sending the following letter to President Trump, Vice President JD Vance, and Acting Interior Secretary Walter Cruickshank, with copies to Senator Mike Lee and Senator John Curtis and Governor Spencer Cox. I encourage you to make your voices heard and send similar letters to members of the Administration.
Loren Campbell
President
Utah Public Lands Alliance
Appeal to President Trump Asking for Executive Action and Leadership_Low Res_000059
The Chevron Deference Doctrine was overturned by the Supreme Court today in a 6-3 decision in the Loper Bright v. Raimondo case. Chevron has been the law of the land since 1984, and ordered lower courts to recognize that federal agencies should be regarded as the experts where a law was ambiguous, and as a result caused Federal agencies to get ever more aggressive in their interpretation of underlying laws in making rules, without fear of a court overrruling their interpretation. This is a landmark decision against the Federal Government in their aggressive rulemaking which restricts the rights of not only OHV users, but also many other groups such as gun owners, the environment, the workplace and even health care.
Chief Justice delivered the decision today and said that Courts must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority, as the Administrative Procedure Act] requires, The chief justice called the earlier decision a “judicial invention that required judges to disregard their statutory duties.”
Chevron doctrine has been applied by lower courts in thousands of cases. The Supreme Court itself has invoked the framework to uphold agencies’ interpretations of statutes at least 70 times, but not since 2016, when the Court began to drift away from their conviction for the Doctrine.
This is definitely a landmark decision that will shift our fight against Federal overreaches in restricting responsible use of our public lands, and may lead to many new arguments against devastating rules such as the recently adopted BLM Landscape Health Rule that allows conservation leases and a host of other new rules not addressed by FLPMA.
If you’d like to read the court decision, you can find it here…