Federal lands amendment draws bipartisan rebuke

As part of broader housing initiatives, Republicans in both the Trump administration and in Congress are pursuing the sale of large swaths of federal land to potentially develop housing. But the Republican front is not completely united.

Earlier this month, lawmakers in the House of Representatives’ Committee on Natural Resources saw an amendment added to a Republican budget “megabill” that would authorize the sale of thousands of acres of federal land in Nevada and Utah.

A ‘red line’ for a Republican

Democratic committee members lambasted the proposal, taking issue with the key sponsors for not informing their fellow state representatives who are Democrats about plans that could impact thousands of their states’ residents.

Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.) lambasted the amendment as “a land grab to fund Republicans ‘billionaire giveaway’ tax bill, and I’ll fight it with everything I have.”

Democratic opposition to anything in the Trump administration is not hard to find, but it is less common to see overt criticism of an administration plan from Republicans.

However, Rep. Ryan Zinke (R) of Montana — another state containing large swaths of federal land — has emerged as an opponent of the proposal from the Republican side. Zinke said he was drawing a “red line” on public land sales, according to reporting at ABC News.

According to reporting earlier this month at Politico, Zinke plans to make his opposition clear to Republican leaders in the House when announcing the launch of a bipartisan “public lands caucus” in the chamber, in response to the amendment and alongside other lawmakers representing states with sizable federal land holdings.

“I have told leadership before, I have told leadership since, that … I strongly don’t believe [land sales] should be in the reconciliation bill,” he told the outlet. “I don’t yield to pressure, I only yield to higher principle.”

Zinke expanded on his perspectives in a Facebook post shortly thereafter, calling the issue his “San Juan Hill,” a reference to a decisive 1898 battle in the Spanish-American War.

“I cannot and will not vote to sell public lands,” Zinke said. “I have been crystal clear with my colleagues. Even if every square foot of public land was sold at top dollar it wouldn’t even eliminate the annual deficit. Once the land is sold and access eliminated, we will never get it back. God isn’t creating more land.”

The former — and current — Interior secretaries

Zinke’s words may have more weight in the debate considering that he served as the Secretary of the Interior during the first Trump administration. A key proponent of the federal land sales amendment is his second Trump administration successor, Doug Burgum, who appeared this week with U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Secretary Scott Turner in Nevada to laud the housing possibilities of such sales.

Burgum stated during the tour of federal land in Henderson, Nevada, that he is collaborating with Turner “to secure a new future for Nevada’s housing supply that will put the state in a better position to work with local communities and utilize its land for resource and urban development.”

“In unlocking pinpointed federal lands, we have the opportunity to create smart developments that expand the housing supply and tackle the affordability crisis,” he added.

In a prior appearance alongside Turner announcing a new interagency pact between the Department of the Interior (DOI) and HUD, Burgum said that federal lands “are an incredible asset on America’s balance sheet,” which could be used “to solve our nation’s affordable housing crisis.”

Land a ‘very small portion’ of housing costs

But late last week, Zinke expounded on his opposition to the plan in an interview with WBUR, the Boston-based affiliate of National Public Radio (NPR).

“Look, this is not a blue issue or red issue,” Zinke told the outlet. “This is a red, white and blue issue. Even though these public lands are in Nevada, they belong to all of us as Americans and I think we cherish our public lands. Because once it’s developed, it’s gone.”

Touching specifically on the housing angle of the plan, Zinke said that those championing the amendment are not looking at the right part of the issue to spur more housing development.

“Forty percent of the cost of housing is permitting and infrastructure. That’s water or sewer. Then you have building materials. Then, of course, you have to have some profit,” he said. “But land is a very small portion of it.”

Collaborating with the government on the need to bolster housing infrastructure should be part of the conversation, he added.

“Look, if there’s a municipality that needs an expansion of their sewer system or a runway or affordable housing, we have done that in the past. We’ve done land exchanges, where it’s in the best interest of public access and wildlife management,” Zinke said.