EDITORIAL: Revised land bill would still be a step forward

Sen. Mike Lee’s proposal that the federal government jettison an infinitesimal portion of its vast land holdings in Nevada and 10 other Western states to spur housing and infrastructure development fell victim to Senate rules this week. The Utah Republican should ready his bill for another day.

Under Sen. Lee’s original plan, Congress would have authorized federal agencies to identify public lands that would be suitable for housing development with the goal of selling 3 million acres for such use. President Donald Trump has embraced the concept as a means of increasing housing supply and driving down prices. Nevada Gov. Joe Lombardo has repeatedly urged the White House to act in Nevada.

Sen. Lee attached his legislation to the budget reconciliation package — the president’s “big beautiful bill.” But the Senate parliamentarian determined that the proposal was subject to the “Byrd rule” that allows separate votes on provisions that are not fiscally related. That raised the threat of a Democratic filibuster, ending its chances.

The proposal had come under fierce attack from the usual suspects — environmental groups that cynically portray any effort to reduce Washington’s large real estate portfolio as an attack on America’s national parks and scenic treasures. In fact, the feds control billions of acres of land across the West that could hardly be considered ecologically sensitive and would be more productive in private hands.

Sen. Lee accepted his loss Tuesday and said he would revise his proposal in the coming months, narrowing its scope to exclude land under U.S. Forest Service control and to include only federal real estate within five miles of population centers. But even this wasn’t adequate for his critics.

“Sen. Lee backtracking here shows his true intentions,” said Laiken Jordahl of the Center for Biological Diversity, a green litigation machine. “His legislation was always about destroying public lands anywhere and everywhere, privatizing cherished recreation destinations and locking away these beautiful places for the ultra-rich. … His bill will still be an unprecedented giveaway of ... to special interests that is overwhelmingly unpopular with the American people.”

Please. Don’t be fooled by Mr. Jordahl’s hysterical mewling. Washington “owns” about 56.3 million acres in Nevada alone, more than 80 percent of the state’s land mass. How much is enough?

Public lands are indeed vital to local economies and users, including hikers, outdoor enthusiasts and others. But reducing Washington’s massive real estate portfolio by a tiny fraction to allow established communities more room to grow and prosper is hardly akin to “destroying” the nation’s “beautiful places” in service to the “ultra-rich.”

Rep. Lee shouldn’t be deterred and should revive his legislation in the coming weeks or months.