House Republicans have advanced a plan to sell off hundreds of thousands of acres of federal public lands in Nevada and Utah, drawing swift criticism from conservation groups, outdoor recreation advocates, and some state and local leaders.

The amendment, introduced by Representatives Mark Amodei (R-NV) and Celeste Maloy (R-UT), was quietly added to a larger budget reconciliation bill during a late-night House Natural Resources Committee session earlier this week.

Lawmakers voted to approve the amendment around midnight with little debate and no opportunity for public input. The bill must next face votes from both the full House and Senate before moving to the President’s desk for final signature.

Outdoor advocates are urging the public to contact representatives and oppose the amendment’s inclusion in the reconciliation bill.

Public Land Sale Moves Forward in House

The proposal authorizes the sale of up to 200,000 acres in Clark County, Nev., and about 350,000 acres in Pershing County, Nev. It also targets more than 10,000 acres of public lands in Utah.

Many of these parcels are managed by the Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service, and overlap with popular recreation areas used for mountain biking, climbing, paddling, and other outdoor activities.

Supporters of the plan argue that selling these lands would generate an estimated $18 billion in revenue to help offset tax cuts and fund energy projects. They point out that the targeted parcels represent a small fraction of total federal land holdings in these states.

“Not all federal lands have the same value,” Representative Maloy said in committee. “Some should not be available for disposal. We all agree on that. However, in both Democratic and Republican administrations, for decades, we’ve been disposing of appropriate lands in a manner that’s consistent with what I propose to do here.”

However, the plan has faced bipartisan opposition. Conservation groups warn that the affected areas include important recreation access points and wildlife habitat.

No Public Review, Environmental Concerns

Critics raised concerns about the land sales and the process used to pass the amendment. The vote happened around midnight with no notice or chance for public review. Every Republican except Rep. Jeff Hurd (R-CO) voted for the amendment.

The full package, including the land sale, passed with support from all Republicans and Rep. Adam Gray (D-CA).

The bill also allows industries to pay to skip judicial review of environmental assessments under NEPA. Conservation groups warn this could weaken protections and reduce public oversight of development projects.

What Happens Next

The reconciliation bill, including the public land sale amendment, must now go before the full House of Representatives for a vote. If it passes the House, the bill will move to the Senate, where it will face further debate, possible amendments, and a final vote. If both chambers approve the bill, they will send it to the president to sign into law.

Lawmakers could still remove or modify the land sale and NEPA provisions during this process. Advocacy groups say this is a critical window for public input and political pressure, as negotiations and revisions are likely before the bill reaches a final form.

Until a final bill is signed, the proposed land sales are not enacted. Stakeholders are urging continued outreach to elected officials to influence the outcome before it becomes law.

Take Action: What You Can Do

Outdoor recreation and conservation groups are encouraging the public to take action by contacting their lawmakers. Organizations like the Outdoor Alliance (OA) are urging individuals to write directly to their congressional representatives to demand the removal of the land sale and NEPA rollback provisions from the bill. OA emphasizes that personal, direct messages are more effective than form letters.

You can find your representative through the government’s index.

Advocates stress that public lands deserve transparent review and public involvement. These decisions made behind closed doors without input from communities or stakeholders seem to follow the same path as other recent anti-public-lands policies.

GearJunkie will continue to report on this issue as it develops.