Estimated read time: 4-5 minutes
- A controversial amendment in the federal budget bill that would let local government entities in Washington County buy federal land has been pulled.
- Proponents said the envisioned land transactions were needed to help with local infrastructure projects aimed at contending with growth.
- Critics cited what they said was lacking transparency and concerns the land would end up in private hands.
ST. GEORGE — A controversial proposal to let several local governmental entities in Washington County buy around 10,000 acres of federal land to help them contend with growth has hit a dead end.
Rep. Celeste Maloy, a Republican representing Utah's 2nd District, teamed with Rep. Mark Amodei, a Nevada Republican, in inserting the provision to permit the land sales in the proposed federal budget bill earlier this month. Their proposal would have allowed for the sale of around 500,000 acres in all in Nevada to local governmental entities there, which sparked plenty of debate on its own. But even the more modest element to permit the sale of around 10,000 acres of federal land in Washington and Beaver counties mustered a lot of reaction, both pro and con.
Whatever the case, the measure was stripped from the budget bill Wednesday night as debate continues on the broader budget initiative, the Deseret News reported. The change was revealed in a manager's amendment — a procedural tool — put forward by Republicans Wednesday night.
Maloy didn't offer an immediate public reaction, but the proposal she and Amodei put forward had generated plenty of reaction from a broad cross-section of players leading up to Wednesday's move. Washington County leaders had favored the provision, the Shivwits Band of Paiutes opposed it and a coalition of 100-plus environmental groups became the latest to sound off, issuing a statement of opposition Wednesday morning.
"It was concocted with zero public input, with zero opportunity for public review and with zero understanding of the places potentially impacted. To top it all off, the amendment was initially introduced at nearly midnight during the 13th hour of an all-day hearing," Travis Hammill, Washington, D.C., director for the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, charged in the statement. "Rep. Maloy should be embarrassed by her actions."
Notwithstanding the strong language, several Washington County officials and Maloy had defended the proposal, saying it would aid with infrastructure development as more people move into the St. George area. Maloy and Amodei introduced the provision on May 6 as an amendment to the federal budget reconciliation bill, the spending plan some House GOP leaders hope to approve this week, though it would still face Senate consideration.
"This land would be used for critical infrastructure needs like connecting bike trails and improving access to water facilities and resources. With approximately 82% of Washington County federally managed, this strategic land sale can responsibly reduce the federal deficit while supporting economic growth in one of the fastest-growing regions in the country," Maloy said in a newsletter to constituents soon after introducing the amendment language.
Several Washington County officials issued a statement of support last week, saying the land in question would help with proposed road expansions, trail development and utility upgrades. The Utah land is scattered at numerous locations, mostly in Washington County, and it would be sold at fair market value, just to public entities, proponents say.
"The parcels identified in the amendment are limited and strategically selected for public benefit. Rather than sweeping tracts of untouched wilderness, these are targeted areas intended to support specific infrastructure projects such as enhancements to a regional water reuse system, Baker Reservoir, Gunlock Road and Sandcove Road," Washington County Commissioner Gil Almquist said.
Washington County Attorney Eric Clarke said the provision wouldn't be needed "if federal land management processes worked as they should."
Nevertheless, detractors expressed skepticism.
"The amendment contains no requirements for public use and no limitations on how public lands in Utah can be used once sold. That means the land could be developed for golf courses, luxury resorts, strip malls, vacation homes or simply flipped for sale again," reads Wednesday's statement from the environmental groups.
The Shivwits Band of Paiutes lamented what it described as the "hurried" nature of the proposal and lacking engagement with lawmakers. Two parcels to have been sold sit near Shivwits land by the Santa Clara River, source of the tribe's main water rights.
The proposal "offers no transparency about how these federal lands were selected for sale, who stands to benefit or what private interests coordinated with members of Congress to engineer this proposal behind closed doors," read a statement the tribe sent to the media last week. "The conspicuous lack of detail raises serious questions: Who identified these lands? Who initiated the transfer? And why was the Shivwits Band — the sovereign tribal nation most directly affected — excluded from the conversation?"
