Utah is leading a battle over control of public lands, with New Mexico and other Western states caught in the crosshairs.

Utah's Republican officials want to sell off nearly 20 million acres and have enlisted 13 other states in a lawsuit headed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The lawsuit argues the federal government should not control Bureau of Land Management parcels within Utah's border, and per the Constitution can only own a state's military bases.

Jesse Deubel, executive director of the New Mexico Wildlife Federation, explained the importance of the case.

"The consequences of this are far more reaching than just the BLM, and it's also far more reaching than just the state of Utah," Deubel stressed. "This would affect public lands everywhere."

If the high court agrees with Utah's argument the federal government cannot hold public lands indefinitely, Deubel pointed out federal ownership of national parks, forests or wildlife refuges could be challenged.

Because the U.S. has 640 million acres of federally managed public lands, Deubel acknowledged it is no surprise some people want them privatized, which would keep the majority of people from enjoying them as recreational spaces.

"They're viewing it as being untapped wealth," Deubel contended. "I would argue that our federally managed public lands are actually owned by the people, and the BLM or the U.S. Forest Service, those are the management agencies that we've hired to manage the lands that we own."

He noted the Texas group, American Stewards of Liberty, which advocates for private property rights, is behind Utah's effort to overturn ownership of public lands.

"There's been part of a narrative that said that 'The state of Utah wants to get its land back from the federal government,'" Deubel observed. "The reality is, none of the BLM land that's in question here was ever owned by the state of Utah. It was federal land when Utah became a state, it's federal land today. There's nothing to take back."

Western states including Idaho, Alaska, Wyoming and Arizona have signed onto the lawsuit, along with Alabama, Arkansas, Iowa, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota and Texas.

International tourists visiting U.S. national parks may pay more at the gate starting next year.

Advocates have called it a "common-sense policy" that could raise needed revenue for maintenance. In its 2026 "Budget in Brief," the U.S. Department of the Interior has included a surcharge for the 14 million foreigners who visit America's national parks annually.

A 2023 report from the Property and Environment Research Center found a $25 surcharge would just about double fee revenue to the National Park Service, adding $330 million to its coffers.

Tate Watkins, research fellow at the center, said the revenue could go a long way.

"With a relatively small increase in fees for visitors from abroad, you could raise a really significant amount of revenue that many parks really, really need," Watkins pointed out. "Especially the ones that are bigger, attract more visitors and have seen booms in visitation over recent years."

Watkins noted routine maintenance at Yellowstone, the nation's oldest park, costs about $43 million annually, while the park has a maintenance backlog totaling $1.5 billion. The Interior budget comes as the U.S. Senate's reconciliation bill proposes moves which could hinder park operations, including pulling $267 million in remaining Inflation Reduction Act funding earmarked for the Park Service.

Watkins stressed current park fees make up a small slice of travel budgets for those visiting from outside the country, usually less than 3%.

"When you think of the types of visitors who are able to pay multi-thousands of dollars for a big, often bucket-list trip to some of the incredible sites that we have at our national parks, most wouldn't blink at paying a little bit more, or even potentially a decent amount more," Watkins asserted.

According to the report, it is common practice around the world to charge international visitors more. Torres del Paine National Park in Chilean Patagonia, for example, charges foreigners $55, almost four times the citizens' rate of $14.


get more stories like this via email

California took a big step Tuesday toward the goal of conserving 30% of land and waters by 2030. The Ocean Protection Council adopted a roadmap to decide which protected waters will count toward the goal.

"We're now at 21.9% of coastal waters conserved," said Michael Esgro, the council's senior biodiversity program manager and tribal liaison, "so more than three-quarters of the way to our 30 by 30 goal, here at the halfway point of the initiative. We have another almost 300,000 acres to conserve by 2030."

The Council refined the roadmap over the past year in a series of public workshops and consultations with tribes. The next meeting in September will delve further into the specific criteria for evaluating improvements in biodiversity in protected waters.

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg, president of a conservation consulting firm, Coastal Policy Solutions, said advocates are pleased that the final draft of the roadmap zeroes in on threats specific to estuaries, where the rivers meet the sea.

"On the open coast, we're worried more about things like fishing and oil and gas extraction and impacts from shipping," she said. "In bays and estuaries, we're more concerned with impairments to water quality from urban runoff and lack of space for marsh migration under sea-level rise."

At Tuesday's hearing, tribal leaders praised the state and tribal cooperation that resulted in the new federal Chumash Heritage National Marine Sanctuary. However, Violet Sage Walker, chair of the Northern Chumash Tribal Council, said the sanctuary needs more state support if it is to be counted in the 30 x 30 initiative, citing cuts at the federal level.

"I am concerned as national leadership has removed so much of the funding," she said, "so much of the staff and potentially co-management directives from marine sanctuaries and all protected areas."

The roadmap allows for some commercial fishing within the marine sanctuary. Council staff will report back on biodiversity in those waters over the next year.

Support for this reporting was provided by The Pew Charitable Trusts.


get more stories like this via email

Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, has announced plans to reintroduce a public lands sell-off amendment to the big budget reconciliation package in Congress, after a similar proposal was rejected in the U.S. House.

The House version would have facilitated the sale of thousands of acres of public land in Utah to local governments or private buyers. Backers of the idea said it could help address the housing shortage, improve public infrastructure and allow industries to expand. Similar arguments are now being made by Senator Lee.

Steve Bloch, legal director for the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, said the idea is "wildly out of step" with what Utahns want.

"We're all deeply concerned about the precedent that this could set," Bloch explained. "This would start to sell off the fabric of the American West to pay for tax cuts. And if it starts here in Utah and adjacent western states, it can really spread anywhere across the West and into Alaska."

Bloch pointed out the amendment would be only the beginning of public lands being sold. In recent polling, a majority of Utah voters said they oppose giving control over national public lands to state government.

Lee has been an advocate for selling them, especially in Utah, which is made up of about two-thirds public land. But the amendment could prove to be another hurdle for Republicans who want to pass the bill by July 4.

Bloch would like state leaders to have meaningful conversations with public lands advocates. He noted it is a group that includes people from all sides of the political spectrum.

"This is a far cry from your Schoolhouse Rock 'How a Bill Becomes a Law,'" Bloch asserted. "This is not some stand-alone piece of legislation. This is trying to insert public land sell-off into a budget bill, expressly for the purpose of selling them off to pay for tax cuts."

The budget bill now awaits revisions in the Senate and will then go back to the House. In the meantime, Bloch encouraged Utahns and other westerners to voice their opinions.

"We're encouraging our members and supporters to reach out to Senator Lee and tell him that he is simply out of touch with what Utahns, and other westerners, want," Bloch underscored.


get more stories like this via email