Federal government could put millions of acres of SoCal public land up for sale

Millions of acres of public lands in California and across the West could be put up for sale over the next five years under the legislation in Congress that President Donald Trump has called the “big beautiful bill.”

More than 250 million acres of federal lands — including an estimated 10 million acres in California, according to the state — would be eligible to be sold off if the budget reconciliation bill from Sen. Mike Lee, a Utah Republican and chairman of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, is approved. Senate Republicans set a deadline of July 4 for a vote on the bill.

What’s in the bill?

The bill mandates selling at least 3 million acres of public lands to “interested parties,” which adds up to an area about the size of Connecticut. States would have the first opportunity to buy the land, but the ability to do that could be affected by each state’s budget — especially, environmentalists worry, when competing with large, well-financed corporations.

Kirsten Macintyre, a spokesperson for the California Natural Resources Agency, said the agency and the state "strongly oppose the haphazard sell-off."

"California does not have enough funding to buy federal lands proposed for sale or to manage those lands long-term," Macintyre wrote in an email to LAist. "California is currently working to understand the extent of impacts to community safety, emergency readiness, biodiversity and culturally protected areas if the sell-off comes to fruition."

The bill would also open new oil drilling in the Arctic and offshore drilling in the Gulf and Alaska, and eliminate funding for renewable energy projects on federal lands overseen primarily by the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service. Locally, chunks of the Angeles, Los Padres, San Bernardino and Cleveland national forests could be on the auction block.

Environmentalists, elected leaders and others worry the sales could be detrimental both for people who recreate in these areas, as well as for wildlife.

 "The BLM, the Forest Service and the federal land management agencies for years have balanced development with conservation on federal public lands,” said Michael Carroll, the BLM campaigns manager with environmental group the Wilderness Society, which created a map of the public lands that could end up for sale.

“Once they're sold, they're gone for good,” Carroll said.

Though national parks and national monuments are exempt from the proposed sell-off, the Trump administration has indicated it may target those spaces in the future as part of its efforts to expand domestic fossil fuel production. (The U.S. has been the world’s top crude oil producer since 2018). In a recent opinion, the Department of Justice stated the Trump administration has authority to undo national monuments established by his predecessors.

States would have the first opportunity to buy lands that go up for sale under the proposal, but a California representative said the state couldn't afford to purchase and maintain the lands, such as in the Angeles National Forest, seen here.

(

David McNew

/

Getty Images

)

Why sell off public lands?

Lee, the Utah senator, has argued the bill would open land to build affordable housing, while reducing the budget deficit and expanding local sources of oil, gas and coal.

Not everyone agrees. In May, House Republicans struck down a public lands sales provision that was supported by most House Republicans. But Rep. Ryan Zinke of Montana pushed back, and the provision was eliminated.

“I do not support the widespread sale or transfer of public lands. ... God isn’t creating more land,” Zinke said in a news release. “Public access, sportsmanship, grazing, tourism … our entire Montanan way of life is connected to our public lands.”

Democrats oppose the provision in the Senate version of the bill.

In a social media post, Sen. Adam Schiff, a California Democrat, blasted the idea.

“Republicans are attempting to ram through a provision to sell millions in acres in California, including land around Yosemite, Mt. Shasta, Lake Tahoe and Big Sur, as part of their big ugly bill,” Schiff wrote. “Our federal public treasures shouldn't be sold off to the highest bidder. I will fight this, tooth and nail.”

California's other U.S. senator said the "proposal is riddled with anti-environment provisions."

"If Republicans have their way, we will never get our public lands back once they are privatized," Sen. Alex Padilla said in a statement. "Our public lands and natural spaces are some of our nation’s greatest gifts, and I will do everything I can do to protect them."

After the vote on the larger bill, it will need to go back to the House. Congressional committees are submitting their concerns about provisions in the reconciliation bill. The bill won’t become law until Trump signs the final version.

SoCal public lands that could be affected

Using data from the BLM, the Forest Service, the U.S. Geological Survey, the National Park Service and the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee budget reconciliation bill text, nonprofit environmental advocacy group the Wilderness Society created a comprehensive map of the lands that would be eligible for sale.

Some Southern California areas that could be affected include:

• More than 240,000 acres in the Angeles National Forest, largely areas that are home to old growth trees. 
• Much of the San Bernardino National Forest, including near Lake Arrowhead and Big Bear Lake.
• Large swaths of the Cleveland National Forest and Los Padres National Forest.
• Popular hiking areas such as Strawberry Creek in Idyllwild. 
• BLM lands near Joshua Tree National Park.
• Large portions of forest land surrounding Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks.
• Large portions of the Santa Ana Mountains.
• Portions of the Chaney Trail Corridor in Altadena. 
• BLM lands south of Chuckwalla National Monument, which are the ancestral lands of the Fort Yuma Quechan Tribe.

The map includes links to elected leaders for each area.

“Republican lawmakers from California have a duty to stand up and say, ‘I'm a no on this until the public land sale provisions are taken out of the bill,’” Carroll said. “ We need people to contact their lawmakers and ask them to demand that this provision that's in the Senate bill be stripped out of it.”