Last week, members of the U.S. Senate unveiled a significant proposal to sell federal land as part of the Republican-led “Big, Beautiful Bill” aimed at funding the U.S. government.
If adopted, this sale could have substantial implications for Alaska, where more than 61% of the land is under federal control.
A draft by the U.S. Senate’s Committee on Energy and Natural Resources stipulates that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the U.S. Forest Service must sell between 2.2 million and 3.3 million acres of public land across 11 Western states, including Alaska.
While national parks and monuments would be exempt from the sale, vast areas of Forest Service and BLM land would still be up for grabs.
According to the proposed legislation, the sold land should be dedicated exclusively to housing development or to meet related community needs.
The Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture would determine if the usage of the sold land aligns with appropriate purposes.
Proponents of the land sale argue that it could alleviate the housing crisis in Western states.
Since 1998, for instance, the BLM has successfully implemented a land-sale initiative in Nevada, resulting in thousands of homes being built in the Las Vegas area.
James Brooks, a staff member for Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, indicated that this new provision would allow for a similar nationwide approach.
However, the proposal has garnered opposition from environmental advocates, such as the Wilderness Society.
Currently, the language from the Energy and Natural Resources Committee remains in the draft stage, but it poses significant implications for Alaska.
In addition to discussions around proposed cuts to Medicaid and food assistance programs, the energy and land negotiations could be pivotal.
Sen. Dan Sullivan, R-Alaska, emphasized the potential historical significance of this legislation for Alaska during a recent address to the Resource Development Council in Anchorage.
He stated that the proposed measures would influence oil production policies in regions like the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) and the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska (NPR-A).
“ANWR, NPR-A, timber, Cook Inlet, you name it, it’s in there,” Sullivan asserted.
Murkowski echoed this sentiment, highlighting the concerted efforts by herself, Sullivan, and Rep. Nick Begich III, R-Alaska, in the ongoing budget reconciliation process.
“We’re going to refill TAPS,” she stated, referring to the trans-Alaska oil pipeline, and pledged to increase mineral production while advocating for a sustainable timber industry.
In terms of oil and gas drilling, the proposal mandates that the federal government conduct four oil and gas lease sales in the ANWR between 2025 and 2035.
This requirement reflects similar language proposed by Murkowski in the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which historically resulted in two lease sales that saw minimal bidder participation.
Additionally, the proposal would compel the federal government to organize six lease sales in Cook Inlet by 2035.
However, interest from bidders during previous sales has been lackluster.
More critically, the proposal mandates six lease sales in the NPR-A, and any development restrictions imposed by the previous Biden administration would be lifted.
Oil companies have expressed interest in NPR-A development, notably with ConocoPhillips’ Willow Project being a significant recent endeavor.
For Alaska, one notable aspect of the proposal is the suggestion that the state would receive 90% of all rental fees and royalties from oil and gas leasing on North Slope federal land starting in fiscal year 2035, increasing from the existing 50% share.
This same 90% share would also apply to Cook Inlet leases.
Prior to 2035, the state will still receive 50% of royalties, rentals, and bonuses.
Currently, a significant portion of these royalties benefits communities on the North Slope.
Should the proposed royalty structure be adopted, it would significantly bolster state finances.
At present, Alaska subsidizes development in NPR-A through tax credits, but the dearth of royalty revenue means that the state’s subsidies may take years to recover.
The Alaska Legislature has demonstrated its support for this initiative, as evidenced by a 57-2 vote endorsing a resolution calling for the adoption of the 90-10 royalty split by Congress.
The committee’s proposal also recommends reducing the federal royalty rate—raised under the Biden administration—potentially lowering the revenue the state receives from successful leases.
Another significant element of this proposal is the approval of a right-of-way permit for the Ambler Road, which is designed to connect the Dalton Highway to a mining district in Northwest Alaska.
Historically, the Biden administration expressed opposition to the Ambler Road project, but congressional language would revert the project status to where it stood in 2020.
Currently, the Ambler Road project is embroiled in litigation with environmental groups lodged against it, while the state and Alaska’s state-owned investment bank support the initiative through their own legal actions.
Concerning logging, the proposed legislation would mandate an increase in logging on federal lands.
The U.S. Forest Service would be required to enhance the volume of timber sold to logging entities while being obligated to enter into at least 40 long-term timber sale contracts involving national forests.
These types of contracts played a pivotal role in establishing Southeast Alaska’s pulp mills, which relied heavily on timber from the Tongass National Forest.
However, many timber harvests taken from the Tongass are currently shipped internationally without undergoing any processing within the United States.
The Bureau of Land Management would also need to pursue long-term timber harvest contracts with potential buyers.
Regarding land sales, the Section 301 of the committee’s proposal requires the Bureau of Land Management to sell between 0.5-0.75% of eligible BLM land while the Forest Service is mandated to do the same.
Importantly, land set aside for national parks, preserves, landmarks, or which has a “valid existing right” is not eligible for sale.
For instance, land already designated for transfer to an Alaska Native corporation, the state of Alaska, or the University of Alaska is excluded from being sold, as is land leased for timber sales, mining, or oil and gas drilling.
In the context of Alaska, the legislation stipulates that local Alaska Native tribes must be consulted before any land sale occurs.
Moreover, the legislation maintains that the sold land shall be utilized exclusively for housing development or related community needs.
In a statement, Sullivan underscored the significance of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee’s land saling provision for Alaskans.
“Alaskans understand how the federal government’s ownership of 60 percent of Alaska’s lands can impede economic development and exacerbate challenges like the acute shortage of affordable housing,” he remarked.
He continued, expressing that the land provision facilitates the opportunity to liberate some Forest Service and BLM lands for added housing initiatives, particularly in Southeast and Southcentral Alaska.
This is especially relevant for communities experiencing increased demand due to the enhanced military and Coast Guard presence.
Municipal officials in Ketchikan, for example, have indicated a desire to release some federal land, particularly on Gravina Island, to facilitate homebuilding.
In Juneau, local officials have actively sought available land; however, City Manager Katie Koester expressed concerns regarding whether Forest Service land is actually developable.
“That land is mostly mountains and ice fields … and if it were flat and simple to develop, it’s also quite distant from utility connections,” she noted.
Koester shared skepticism about the availability of easily accessible federal land for development, stating, “I just don’t see a lot of easily developable land that is owned by the federal government.”
Assessing maps published by the Bureau of Land Management, some Forest Service land appears available along the road leading to Juneau’s ski area, Eaglecrest, and in a swampy region near a shopping center.
She acknowledged there might be isolated parcels that could be viable for development.
However, she added, “Our community, our Assembly, has been very vocal about public land staying in public ownership.”
In Anchorage, a major homebuilding initiative has been launched by Mayor Suzanne LaFrance, although uncertainty remains regarding whether a federal land sale would significantly aid this effort.
Utilizing maps published by the BLM reveals the Campbell Tract as a potentially substantial piece of salable land within urban Anchorage.
Other regions of Eagle River south of the spur road and north of the river may also qualify for sale.
The mayor’s office emphasized that the Campbell Tract serves as a crucial recreational resource for Anchorage, offering residents and visitors year-round access to undeveloped lands and an extensive trail network.
The mayor’s office expressed willingness to pursue other federal land suitable for housing development but insisted it should not infringe on areas already designated for recreation or other significant uses.
Currently, as the legislative situation unfolds, a typical bill would need 60 votes in the Senate to circumvent the filibuster rule.
Nonetheless, Republicans are pursuing the “Big, Beautiful Bill” via a complicated mechanism known as reconciliation.
This process enables the passage of a bill with 51 votes, or 50 votes with the vice president’s breaking tie.
Reconciliation starts with the Senate and House adopting a resolution determining how much they aim to spend on the federal budget or modify taxes.
Then, the Senate instructs its various committees to outline strategies to make spending compliant with that resolution, essentially aligning current government actions with congressional intent.
Each Senate committee composes a proposal for the federal departments under its purview.
The Senate’s work is presently in this phase of the process.
Following this, the committee’s proposals are reviewed against the Byrd Rule, which tests specific criteria to ascertain whether an item can be included in reconciliation.
If any particular element does not meet one of those criteria, it is removed, a process informally referred to as going through the “Byrd bath.”
Subsequently, a “vote-a-rama” takes place, where senators vote on each committee’s language, and amendments can be proposed.
Due to strict limitations on debate time, these votes typically proceed swiftly.
Once the Senate concludes its work, its version of the budget must be combined with a different version that has navigated a similar process in the House.
Finalizing an agreement acceptable to both the House and Senate sends the budget to the president for his signature.
image source from：ictnews
