House Natural Resources Committee Approves Controversial Land Sale Provision
In a move that has sparked significant controversy, the House Natural Resources Committee early this morning approved a budget bill that includes a provision to sell thousands of acres of federal land in Nevada and Utah. Despite fierce opposition from Congressional Democrats and environmental conservation groups, Republicans, led by Mark Amodei of Nevada and Celeste Maloy of Utah, pushed through the amendment, which proposes selling approximately 11,000 acres of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and Forest Service land in Utah, with the possibility of hundreds of thousands more in Nevada.
The amendment was introduced during a marathon committee session, where Democrats attempted to debate their nearly 140 proposed amendments aimed at mitigating the bill’s impacts, all of which were shot down by the Republican majority. Democrat Joe Neguse noted that the committee Republicans appeared to follow directives from House leadership to avoid discussions about contentious provisions.
This budget bill, a key element of the House’s reconciliation package, mandates mineral leasing on nearly all federal lands, endorses energy leasing in Alaska’s North Slope, and restricts legal challenges against public-land development. Critics, including ranking committee Democrat Jared Huffman, have labeled the legislation "the most extreme, anti-environment bill in American history."
Committee chair Bruce Westerman defended the bill, arguing it would yield approximately $18.5 billion in savings and fulfill the obligation to restore fiscal responsibility to the government. The proposed land sales aim to assist in addressing housing affordability concerns but have raised alarms among conservationists regarding the potential for widespread federal land sales across the nation.
Chase Huntley of The Wilderness Society condemned the amendment, stating it would significantly undermine environmental protections and community input in land management. As public response reveals deep-seated opposition to reduced oversight for oil and gas developments, the ramifications of this decision will likely resonate far beyond the committee’s proceedings.
Source
Note: The image is for illustrative purposes only and is not the original image of the presented article.
