Not for Sale: Why Public Lands Must Stay Public
Selling public land might sound like a quick way to make a buck, but it’s a deal with long-term costs we can’t afford. These lands aren’t just empty stretches of dirt; they’re wild spaces, community treasures, and a shared legacy for future generations. Handing them over to private hands risks losing access, harming ecosystems, and shrinking the commons we all rely on. To learn why selling public land is a bad idea and why keeping it public matters more than ever, keep reading.
What’s happening with the possible sale of public lands:
On June 11, Senator Mike Lee released text for a budget bill that would require federal agencies to sell millions of acres of public lands. Although national parks are protected from this sale, roadless areas in forests, national scenic areas, and areas of critical environmental concern may still be sold.
The places that could be included in this sale would be forests, rivers, wetlands, and deserts. These lands could be sold in Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Utah, Washington, or Wyoming.
What’s happening in different states?
Many states in the West don’t approve of the sale of public lands, but some do.
Nevada:
On May 6, the House Natural Resources Committee in the U.S. House of Representatives approved an amendment to the budget bill to sell public lands in Utah and Nevada. But on May 21, this provision was removed from the budget bill in the House of Representatives. Governor Joe Lombardo and the Bureau of Land Management signed an agreement to share data about national public land that is “available for disposal in Nevada”. This may be the first step toward land moving from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to the state of Nevada.
Utah:
Senate Energy Chairman Mike Lee, a Utah republican, proposed selling public lands in the West to states or other entities for use in housing or infrastructure. This plan revives the long-standing ambition of Western conservatives to transfer lands to local control. Utah and Mike Lee are big advocates for selling land in the west “to generate revenue for the state”.
New Mexico:
New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham, a Democrat, called Utah’s proposal problematic. This stems from New Mexico's close relationship with public lands. The state representatives of New Mexico strongly oppose the sale of their public lands.
Montana:
A bill was introduced in the Montana state house to support Utah’s lawsuit, but was defeated in a vote on the Montana House floor. Another bill was introduced that would have allowed the state to sell large amounts of land to private landowners. Montana is in support of selling off their public lands, claiming that this could lead to increased development opportunities. Though residents of Montana are unsure of this proposal, stating that they’re concerned with the potential negative impacts on public access and the environment
California:
California has a significant amount of public land, some of which is located in scenic and ecologically important areas, such as Lake Tahoe, Yosemite, and the Trinity Alps. California’s leaders are concerned about the potential negative impacts that could result from these sales, including loss of public access, environmental damage, and economic harm to gateway communities.
Why selling public land is such a bad idea:
Though it seems that the first lands to be sold would be Bureau of Land Management or National Forest Land, rather than well-known parks or wildlife refuges, they would still be selling areas with a low likelihood of commercial value from oil leases, mining claims, or timber sales, these places are still special to the people who use them.
Why private landowners aren’t a good idea:
Selling land to private landowners could be devastating for wildlife. National agencies have to manage the land to protect wildlife habitats. Private landowners are much less restricted.
Why land shouldn’t be transferred from the national to the state government:
The state government doesn’t have the financial capacity to manage a significantly larger area than it currently does. They may not have the multiple-use mandate that our national government does, which requires them to balance recreation with other uses.
What are the supposed “positives” of the sale?
Members of Congress are reportedly considering the sale of public land as a way to balance the budget or to utilize the land for building affordable housing. The Departments of the Interior and Housing and Urban Development have established a joint task force to explore the use of public land for housing. In these areas, affordable housing isn’t a necessity; it’s more an opportunity to make already large communities even bigger, generating more money. Most of the public lands they want to develop for housing aren’t suitable for living, and often, they are located far away from large cities or towns. Selling even a small portion of public land to balance the 2026 budget sets a bad precedent. Will we do it again in 2028? In 2030? It could become a slippery slope.
Who opposes this sale?
-Recent polls show that 71% of the American public opposes selling public lands
-The Outdoor Alliance, a group that represents outdoor recreationists
-The Conservative Alliance, a coalition of businesses
-A bipartisan group of members of Congress:
Representatives Zinke (R-Montana), Simpson (R-Idaho), Vasquez (D-New Mexico), and Dingell (D-Michigan)
-Environment America and many other environmental organizations across the country
-Groups representing hunters and anglers:
Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership and Backcountry Hunters and Anglers
Places to donate and how to help combat the potential sale of our public lands:
Donate:
-Conservation Lands Foundation
How to help:
-Contact your elected officials, specifically senators and representatives
-Express your opposition and urge them to reject any legislation that includes public land sales
-Attend town hall meetings to engage with your representatives in person
-Share information on social media to spread awareness and encourage others to take action
Public land isn’t just real estate—it’s a shared inheritance, a refuge for wildlife, and a place where everyone can connect with nature, history, and community. Selling it off might offer short-term gains, but the long-term losses are far too significant. If we want to preserve something truly valuable, we need to think beyond profit and protect what belongs to all of us. Public land should stay just that: public.
