Congress proposes selling USFS land in AZ to build homes

[chumley]

==========================================
Important 6/17 update to this is noted below: click here to read
==========================================

By definition, this is political, which means that HAZ will bury it for nobody to see. But this proposal could have profound impacts on hiking in Arizona, especially in areas that are close to population centers including Tonto National Forest lands in the Goldfield Mountains near Mesa, the areas north and east of Scottsdale, Carefree, and Cave Creek; the entire Salt River corridor, etc. Coconino National Forest lands around Sedona and Flagstaff are also ripe for sale to private development under this proposal as are Prescott NF lands around Prescott and Cottonwood.

Summary of Proposal:
• Requires BLM and FS to sell a minimum of 0.5% and a maximum of 0.75% of their estates for housing and associated community needs. This will increase the supply of housing and decrease costs for millions of Americans.

• Creates a process for interested parties, including States and units of local governments, to nominate land for disposal to meet housing and community needs. This process includes consultation with Governors and Indian Tribes and allows States or units of local government to have a right of first refusal to purchase land.

• Prohibits the sale of lands with special designations, such as National Parks, National Monuments, wilderness areas, or national recreation areas. Prohibits the sale of any land where there is a valid existing right, including mining claims, grazing permits, mineral leases, or rights of ways.

• Requires all conveyances to be completed within five years of enactment and appropriates $5,000,000 to BLM and $5,000,000 to FS to ensure that all sales and conveyances occur in a timely manner.

Full text of proposal: https://www.energy.senate.gov/services/ ... DABD5A6EBE

There has been plenty written on this bill since it became public last week. If the topic interests you, I encourage you to learn more about it. Here's one with a western-focused viewpoint: https://www.hcn.org/articles/senate-rep ... blic-land/

This map shows BLM and USFS land that is eligible for sale under this proposal. It excludes lands that are not eligible as indicated in the third bullet point above.
https://wilderness.maps.arcgis.com/apps ... 18aac42310
UPDATE: This map has been widely shared and frequently has problems loading. Additionally, updates made late on 6/16/25 seem to include virtually ALL national forest land in Arizona, which is simply wrong. A significant portion of forest and BLM land is ineligible for sale due to existing grazing permits.

This explains the who, what, and where. The how and the why are available for the kind of discussion that will lead nowhere productive.

[Jim]

I have mixed feelings about this, as when Flagstaff chose to approve development 20 to 30 years ago on the private lands south of town, they built homes that were all over $1,000,000. and that was 2007. Where does Flag get the water for new developments? Oh, but they want to sell the Inner Basin of the Peak? Hey great idea. You know, the only reason they aren't selling the entire mountain is that Wilderness Act. Score one for that, I guess.

Added: I see Mount Elden is for sale. Is the south face of Mountain Elden suitable for housing?

Wow! Good bye Pinalenos. No part of that serves the public. This is a wholesale sell off of an entire non-wilderness forest service district. It will go to politically connected people, for sure.

So the entire Catalina Highway is to be sold for development? WTF! That won't be used for anything other than extremely expensive retreats and ostentatious houses.

The Santa Ritas are not really in need of any development. Plenty of land in Green Valley.

How is Rio Verde these days? Did they ever get that water supply issue solved? Seems to me that the existing private land should be used before the USFS starts auctioning itself off under Project 2025 or any other radical right wing wet dream policies.

[azbackpackr]

This is hugely worrisome. I'll look at your message on my laptop, because I really can't see the maps on my phone.

[Jim]

So long backpack trips in the canyons of the Rim.

[Jim]

Background: There is a nationwide shortage of 4.5 million houses and a shortage of 7.1 million
affordable and available homes. The Federal government owns nearly a third of the country with the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) owning over 245 million acres and the Forest Service (FS) owning
193 million acres

And most of the land for sale is nowhere near areas that need affordable housing, and the majority of that land will never be used for anything approaching affordable. I see wealthy politically connected people buying vast tracts of land to hoard for their new estates.

No part of selling huge areas of public lands, hundreds of miles from areas that need housing, will do anything to change very local zoning laws in places like San Francisco or any other rich area that refuses to build high density housing.

Generate a small fraction of the money lost to give his wealthy donors huge permanent tax breaks. I'll never understand why people thought a billionaire was their friend.

This proposal is estimated to generate $5 to $10 billion during the 2025-2034 period. This proposal is
central to relieving the housing crisis, fulfilling President Trump’s housing and public lands agenda

It is Trump's agenda to destroy public lands. This is a first step.

Extending the expiring 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) would decrease federal tax revenue by $4.5 trillion from 2025 through 2034.

Tax cuts for the rich, you lose public land access.

President Trump has called for permanent extension of the 2017 tax cuts

https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/ ... ciliation/

Assuming that this could address the need for affordable housing, which is a massive lie, but assuming it did, there is an entire conversation that could be had about the US birthrate, the amount of housing that will be freed up in the next decade as boomers die off or sell their houses at the end of their lives, and how that will affect the housing market which likely peaked over the last few years.

[Jim]

Only part I do support, is the potential selling of Sabino Canyon, as that is an area to be sold off. If it got sold to Tucson or Pima County it could be improved through a local bond initiative and turned into a park with better facilities and maybe better law enforcement. Something like South Mountain or Phoenix Mountain Preserve, but with trails deep into the Catalinas.

However, what part of selling off Sabino Canyon is going to help with housing? Is that an area where Tucson residents need or want to see housing?

[Jim]

Oh, yes, the great need to build affordable housing here. SE Alaska has so many people cooped up in expensive rental apartments .

Ah, yes, the great need for affordable housing in the desert SW of the Eagle Tails. Lots of water out there, too. Tons.

Oh, maybe people will build on the shores of toxic Painted Rock Reservoir. All that DDE (DDT half life breakdown) will be great to swim in when the lake has water in it. Beach front housing for the minimum wage and lower earners that need to get to their job in Mesa or North Scottsdale.

Looks like a plan to sell the Rustler Park Campground. No cronyism there. I'm sure an average guy is going to buy that and build something there for the masses.

[chumley]

To be clear, whoever created the map did so to scare people into action. It should be taken with a grain of salt. Just because areas of public land are technically eligible to be sold does not mean they would ever really end up for sale under this proposal.

The bill also mandates that any public land sales must occur solely for “for the development of housing or to address associated community needs,” but it leaves the definition of these “associated community needs” up to the Secretaries concerned.

Arizona seems to have the most land at risk for potential sale, moreso than other western states, because of the amount of public land immediately adjacent to land that is already developed and has infrastructure in place and ready to go.

While few rational-thinking people really believe that developing (affordable lol) housing will be the "sole" reason for any land sales, it does seem counterintuitive that lands that the FS has previously set aside and manages for recreation would be sold. The Inner Basin? It seems safe to say that the primary source of water for the entire city of Flagstaff is probably not going to be turned into condos. The Rim Lakes Recreation Area? The FS operates campgrounds as well as concessionaire sites here. It is one of the most valued areas for Arizona sportsmen. The reason it shows as eligible for sale on the map is because the area no longer has active grazing leases, something which is true precisely because the FS sees the value in preserving it for outdoor recreation. I think you can make the same observation for other parcels of land too.

Despite the (intended) reactions that exaggerations of "eligible" parcels on the map elicit, it is still a proposal that is wildly different from anything that has existed before. I suspect that Senator Lee's intent is to "shoot for the stars" with the expectation that even a lesser compromise will still be a step toward his desire to get the feds out of making land use decisions in Utah. With two already-assured no-votes coming from Arizona's senators, we don't have a lot of sway in the argument.

[diablo]

This doesn’t sound good at all, shouldn’t be political in my opinion…

[chumley]

There are many sources of outrage on this topic, and for the most part, all of them exaggerate to one extent or another. It's difficult to make a coherent argument for or against a proposal if you don't understand the proposal or what you are arguing for!

If you get a ticket for not wearing your seatbelt, arguing to the judge that you weren't speeding just makes you look stupid, and your chances of getting out of the seatbelt ticket don't improve. Does that analogy help?

The actual text of the bill as proposed and posted on 6/11 is available online here:
https://www.energy.senate.gov/services/ ... 61A4F18096

A revised version of the text was published on 6/16 and is attached to this post as a PDF.

The relevant parts of this proposal begin on page 30.

While large swaths of USFS and BLM lands will be eligible to meet the 0.5% to 0.75% of total land which is mandated to be sold under this proposal, the following are explicitly exempted from that sale (and most of the loudest voices on this topic that I've seen do not qualify their arguments with these facts)

Prohibited from sale:

Limitations:
(4) FEDERALLY PROTECTED LAND*; VALID EXISTING RIGHTS; OUTSIDE ELIGIBLE STATES.—The Secretary concerned may not dispose of any tract of covered Federal land that is—
(A) federally protected land;
(B) subject to valid existing rights**; or
(C) not located in an eligible State.

*(4) FEDERALLY PROTECTED LAND.—The term ‘‘federally protected land’’ means—

(A) a National Monument;
(B) a National Recreation Area;
(C) a component of the National Wilderness Preservation System;
(D) a component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System;
(E) a component of the National Trails System;
(F) a National Conservation Area;
(G) a unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System;
(H) a unit of the National Fish Hatchery System;
(I) a unit of the National Park System;
(J) a National Preserve;
(K) a National Seashore or National Lakeshore;
(L) a National Historic Site;
(M) a National Memorial;
(N) a National Battlefield, National Battlefield Park, National Battlefield Site, or National Military Park; or
(O) a National Historical Park.

If you see a map that includes ANY of these protected lands, question its accuracy.

This is important. Maybe. The following section was included in the original version, but DOES NOT APPEAR in the revised text. The revised text STILL SAYS THAT LANDS WITH VALID EXISTING RIGHTS ARE EXEMPT FROM SALE -- BUT this text which DEFINES specifically what constitutes a Valid Existing Right is no longer present. Are you a lawyer? I'm not!

**(8) VALID EXISTING RIGHT.—The term ‘‘valid existing right’’ means any legally recognized right, title, lease, claim, permit, or right-of-way in or to covered Federal land in existence before the date of enactment of this Act, including—

(A) a mining claim under sections 2319 through 2344 of the Revised Statutes (commonly known as the ‘‘Mining Law of 1872’’) (30 U.S.C. 22 et seq.);
(B) a grazing permit issued under the Act of June 28, 1934 (commonly known as the‘‘Taylor Grazing Act’’) (48 Stat. 1269, chapter 865; 43 U.S.C. 315 et seq.);
(C) a mineral lease issued under the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 181 et seq.); and
(D) a lease or right-of-way issued under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).

In Arizona, the Verde River and Fossil Creek are ineligible. The Arizona Trail is exempt. The Highline Trail is exempt. The General Crook Trail is exempt. There are many other exemptions here in Arizona that are not reflected on any of the interactive maps that I've seen. Are grazing leases valid existing rights? If they are, anywhere you see cows is ineligible for sale. If they're not, a bunch of cattle ranchers are gonna sue the government!

Do these exceptions give anybody warm and fuzzies? Not really. But responding to facts is a better starting point.

Worth noting, the revised text is now a little bit more specific as to how any sold land can be used.

(f) LIMITATIONS.—
(1) USE.—A tract of covered Federal land disposed of under this section shall be used solely for the development of housing or to address associated infrastructure to support local housing needs.

[Jim]

Since the bill REQUIRES that the FS and BLM sell off not less than 0.5% of their lands, even if not more than 0.75%, this is a bad idea.

If you prioritized lands near major urban areas which were in dire need of land for housing, that still forces the sale of land that is probably not suitable for development in any fashion resembling "affordable". Turning to California, around the major cities of southern California with eligible FS lands, none of that land is in proximity to where affordable housing is to be expected, and it is almost guaranteed to be the type of land that will be built into ostentatious hillside houses.

I can't be the only one to remember that there were some really bad fires this January in California. Am I some how the only one to think that it makes no sense to burden those who need "affordable" housing by building at the edge of the city in the most fire prone locations? Of course, it is a fantasy to believe valuable land with topography and a high cost to develop is actually going to be built into anything affordable, but that reason is clearly specious.

Whether the land was in government ownership, or not, one reason the west has an affordability problem is the current land suitable for development is limited due to the geography of the west. You want affordable, move back east to the rural and undeveloped lands that are plentiful in Missouri, Tennessee and so on. California isn't endless rolling hills and plains, it has huge mountains with extensive foothills. I think most people who have been to these places know this. If it isn't water that constrains urban growth, it is suitable land. Arizona, as yet, still has huge tracts of private and state lands in Pinal County that can be built on very easily, but water limits this growth. Selling FS and BLM land near Mesa or out past Tonopah will generate zero water.

This bill is a clear Trojan Horse bill that accomplishes something else from it's stated goals. If the bill ALLOWED vs REQUIRED, that might be something where local forests in conjunction with the cities could negotiate sales of sections close to places like Flagstaff or Show low, but again, as happened with the Pine Canyons and Flag Ranches, the housing that got built over the last 20 years was far from affordable and is mostly second homes that are not lived in most of the year. At least, this was the case in 2007 when there was nothing built under $1,000,000.

REQUIRING the sale basically makes it so that lands are sold off to meet an arbitrary goal, and if and when they are not developed, excuses are made for why they can then be sold to be used for some other use. Mining, maybe? Maybe water rights go with any sales, too? Maybe Flagstaff gets to buy the Inner Basin as a city land parcel for water harvesting, maybe some company that bought a lot of Trump Coin does? Who knows? It certainly isn't going to be housing.

It would make far more sense if the wealthy towns that have a housing crisis stopped voting down planned high density development plans. People complain about the mid-rise apartments and condos in Phoenix, but at least they exist. My only complaint would be the focus on "luxury", which while nice, doesn't exactly make them affordable. Paying nearly $2,000 a month in rent isn't really something most people can afford if they need affordable.

[chumley]

The housing justification is a crock of feces and everybody knows it. There is not a shortage of available housing in this country because of a lack of land to build on. It's just an idiotic premise.

Another note from the original text to the revised text. Originally there was a stipulation that the land use had to be housing related for 10 years after the sale. The newer language removed the timeframe completely. Presumably if a developer pretends to focus on housing for two minutes and decides it's not viable they could now claim they tried but it wasn't feasible.

[Hansenaz]

Relevant [ youtube video ]
I've always enjoyed this guy's outdoor explorations...pleasantly surprised to see him put this together.

[chumley]

https://www.deseret.com/politics/2025/0 ... -proposal/
Mike Lee makes major changes to public lands proposal as it’s struck down by Senate parliamentarian

Lee outlined a number of changes on Monday night, including language to remove any Forest Service land from being eligible for sale.

The original proposal would have required 11 Western states to sell anywhere between 0.5% and 0.75% of all Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service lands in the next five years. The updated language would now only apply that requirement to lands operated by the BLM.

The latest proposal would also reduce how much BLM land can be sold, requiring any sales to be within 5 miles of a population center. Lee noted he would also include language to protect lands utilized by farmers, ranchers and recreational users, although details on how he would do that are not yet clear.

Lee will also establish what he is calling “Freedom Zones” that would ensure any lands sold are used for housing projects rather than going toward massive investment groups or corporations. That was a major concern among constituents, prompting an online social media campaign against the proposal.

The actual revised text has not yet been published.

The provision was stricken by parliamentary rules in the Senate. I'm not sure how a revised provision would not be subject to the same rules. We'll see how things proceed from here.

[chumley]

Even the new reduced mandatory sale of BLM land in the revised plan Sen. Lee is proposing has met with "friendly" opposition. Five congressional Republicans have put their name out publicly saying that they will vote no on the Big Beautiful Bill if it comes back from the Senate with the land sale provision included. Five Republicans is enough to prevent the bill from passage.

While senators have not publicly made the same "red line" commitment, it is questionable whether the bill could pass the senate with the land provision in it.

https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2 ... l-00428521

“We cannot accept the sale of federal lands that Sen. Lee seeks,” wrote the five Republicans led by Rep. Ryan Zinke (R-Mont.). “If a provision to sell public lands is in the bill that reaches the House floor, we will be forced to vote no.”

Zinke — who served as Interior secretary in the first Trump administration — was joined by Reps. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho), Dan Newhouse (R-Wash.), Cliff Bentz (R-Ore.) and David Valadao (R-Calif.), all of whom represent Western states with large federal land holdings. Opposition from five House members would be enough to sink the bill in the lower chamber.

Lee’s effort would be a “grave mistake, unforced error, and poison pill that will cause the bill to fail should it come to the House Floor,” they wrote, arguing that “advancing the House Republicans legislative agenda on public lands and natural resources, along with using existing law for land disposals, is the correct path forward.”

The provision also faces fierce GOP opposition in the Senate. Even if it clears the parliamentarian, Senate Republicans have the votes to block the provision, according to Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.).

“We’ve got the votes to strike it,” Daines said Thursday. “We’re ready.”

[chumley]

Mike Lee pulls public lands sale from Trump tax bill

In a social media post on Saturday, Lee said after listening “to members of the community, local leaders, and stakeholders across the country,” he decided to “withdraw the federal land sales provision from the bill.”

Lee sounded frustrated about the campaign against the public lands provision, saying there had been “a tremendous amount of misinformation — and in some cases, outright lies — about my bill," but said other people brought forward “sincere concerns.”

https://www.deseret.com/politics/2025/0 ... iful-bill/

[RedRoxx44]

@chumley
I was going to post this. Good, I think. But once an idea is brought up by the pea brains in Washington they have a hard time letting it go and usually try a backdoor way to get it thru.