Tribune editorial: Public lands, with public access, are what make the West the West

Note to readers: This editorial was written before the public lands sale was withdrawn from the “Big Beautiful Bill” late Satruday, June 28.

What is it, really, that so many good people in Utah don’t like about the fact that so much of the land hereabouts is owned by the federal government?

Rules. Restrictions. Fees. Limits. Decisions made by people who don’t live here and didn’t ask us what we want.

Fences.

So why would anyone think the situation would get any better if a significant number of those acres were transferred to private ownership?

You think there are a lot of rules and limitations now? Wait until big parcels of our public lands get sold off for use as golf courses, luxury resorts, gated communities, private hunting grounds, second (or third) homes.

Once that starts, the miles of barbed wire that will start appearing across the state, the number of “No Trespassing” signs that will pop up like weeds in a wet spring, might astound us.

It shouldn’t. It’s already the case in states east of Denver, where most acres are privately owned, closed to hunters and anglers, to cattlemen and wilderness guides, to off-road enthusiasts and bird watchers, to hip waders and Birkenstocks alike.

Yet that is the vision that Utah’s Sen. Mike Lee seems to have for us, with his plan to direct the Bureau of Land Management to accept proposals and sell off millions of acres of public lands across Utah and 10 other Western states.

The idea has become a moving target, as Lee replaces one unpopular idea with another, refusing to release either the text of each update or a map of the specific lands that might be disposed of.

This particular push, fortunately, is unlikely to become law. Republicans in Congress from Idaho, Montana and elsewhere have come out against the idea, even successfully pushed for Montana to be left out of the whole scheme. These Republicans understand that public lands, with public access, are what make the West the West.

Senate rules also pose an obstacle, probably preventing Lee from adding this policy idea to a bill that is supposed to be limited to budget considerations. If it doesn’t procedurally fit into the president’s “Big Beautiful Bill” it would have to stand on its own, vulnerable to a Democratic filibuster and unable to survive the likely defection of even a few Republicans.

We need to hear from the rest of our political class — other members of our congressional delegation and state officials — who will make it clear to Congress and the White House that a sell-off of public lands is not what Utahns want.

Of course there are some parcels of federal land that could stand to be handed over to state or local government, for things like water treatment plants or airports, or even to private developers. Some acres that could indeed fulfill Lee’s supposed goal of making land available for affordable housing.

But the process should be transparent, open to input from the public and all stakeholders, under a process that federal law already allows. And there must be explicit guardrails, missing from Lee’s proposals so far, so that sold parcels really are used for homes that real people can afford, in places where it makes sense to build them.

So much of the economy — the soul — of Utah, whether it is quiet recreation, roaring three-wheelers or grazing cattle, is built on our being a public lands state.

If our elected officials want to serve us, they must keep it that way.

Editorials represent the opinions of The Salt Lake Tribune editorial board, which operates independently from the newsroom.