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:
- It generates federal revenue from land sales
- It reduces long term maintenance liabilities (spending)
- It involves budget-relevant policy, not regulatory or social policy detached from the federal budget.
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?
- Lands with Grazing Permits are still included under the Valid Existing Rights clause of the bill, which means any legally recognized right, title, lease, claim, permit, or right of way in or to covered Federal land in existence. The bill specifically excludes Grazing Permits, Mining claims, Mineral leases, and a lease or right of way issued under FLPMA from being eligible for disposal.
- The publication widely circulated by the Wilderness Society is misleading in that it depicts all USFS and BLM land as available for sale, when it is actually the total land managed by the agencies that the .5% or .75% of the totals would be applied.
- The Wilderness Society falsely states that the area includes recreation areas, wilderness study areas, inventoried roadless areas, critical wildlife habitat, and big game migration corridors. The Bill specifically states that Federally Protected Land are ineligible for disposal.
- Claims that this is the largest sale of public land in history are false, there are many examples that are much larger including:
- The Railroad Land Grants (1800’s) granted 180 million acres to railroad companies, leading later to massive resales
- Homestead Act (1862-1986) sold 270 million acres to farmers in 160 acre parcels
- Nevada Land Sales SNPLMA (1998-Present) 65,000 acres around Las Vegas
- Louisiana Purchase (1803) 530 million acres was purchased from France and then most of the land was resold to private individuals, railroads, states, etc
- Western Solar Plan (Dec 2024) Designated 31,000,000 acres of land across western states for long term solar energy development. This was a BLM Programmatic EIS decision which included NEPA requirements at the adoption stage. The initial draft of this plan allowed developers to override previous OHV route designations and did not include protection for SRMAs. Through comments submitted by UPLA and others, the final plan explicitly protects trails and SRMAs by excluding them from the areas for development.
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:
- Within 30 days after passage, the Secretary(s) must begin publishing a notice soliciting nominations (proposals) requesting specific tracts to be made available for sale. The nominations must include details such as the planned use of the land, and express the extent to which the development of the tract would address local housing needs (including housing supply and affordability.) Needs for other associated community needs such as water infrastructure are also eligible uses.
- Before the Secretary selects a tract for disposal, he/she must consult with the Governor of the State, each applicable unit of local government, and each applicable Indian tribe. The Secretary shall give Priority consideration as follows:
- Those nominated by States or units of local government
- Are adjacent to existing developed areas
- Have access to existing infrastructure
- Are suitable for residential housing
- Reduce checkerboard land patterns or
- Are isolated tracts that are inefficient to manage
- Every 60 days, the Secretary will publish the tracts available for disposal. This will begin the first stage of NEPA review and public comments.
- Once a nominee makes application for a particular tract, the determination of Fair Market Value will begin and a second stage of NEPA will begin.
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