By: James Brooks, Alaska Beacon
Members of the U.S. Senate last week proposed a major sale of federal land as part of the “Big, Beautiful Bill” proposed by Republicans to fund the U.S. government.
If adopted, the proposed sale could be significant for Alaska, where the federal government owns and manages 61% of all land in the state.
Under language proposed by the U.S. Senate’s Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service would be required to sell between 2.2 million and 3.3 million acres of public land across 11 Western states, including Alaska.
National parks and monuments would be off limits to sale, but wide swaths of Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management land would still be available.
The proposed language states that the sold land “shall be used solely for the development of housing or to address associated community needs,” and that the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture can determine whether the sold land is being used for an appropriate purpose.
The land-sale provision is being boosted by lawmakers who say it could alleviate high housing prices in Western states. Since 1998, for example, the BLM in Nevada has operated a successful land-sale program that has created thousands of homes in and around the Las Vegas area.
Staff for Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, said the new land-sale language would allow a similar effort nationwide.
But environmental groups, including the Wilderness Society, are opposing the sale provisions.
For the moment, the Energy and Natural Resources Committee proposal is only a draft, but it’s one of a number of ideas with potentially major impacts in Alaska.
While the Senate’s proposed cuts to Medicaid and food stamps have been widely discussed, the energy and lands components of the bill may be just as significant.
“If we get everything that we’re trying to get in it … I think this will probably be one of the most important pieces of legislation for Alaska in our state’s history,” said U.S. Sen. Dan Sullivan, R-Alaska, in a prerecorded Wednesday address to the Resource Development Council in Anchorage.
It would affect policies related to oil development in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge and the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska, as well as other resource development, he said.
“ANWR, NPR-A, timber, Cook Inlet, you name it, it’s in there,” he said.
Murkowski, also speaking in a recorded message, said that within Congress, she, Sullivan and Rep. Nick Begich III, R-Alaska, are all working on the budget reconciliation process.
“We’re going to refill TAPS,” she said, referring to the trans-Alaska oil pipeline, “we’re going to produce more of our minerals. We’re fighting for a sustainable timber industry, and we’re going to keep harvesting the best seafood and welcoming millions of visitors every year as we come together to secure our resource future.”
Oil and gas drilling
If the Energy and Natural Resources Committee’s text is adopted, the federal government would be required to hold four oil and gas lease sales in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, east of Prudhoe Bay, between 2025 and 2035.
The language of that section mirrors a section proposed by Murkowski in the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which resulted in two lease sales that drew minimal interest from bidders.
The federal government would also be required to hold six lease sales in Cook Inlet by 2035. Again, bidders have shown little interest in prior sales.
More significantly, the federal government would be required to hold six lease sales in the NPR-A, to the west of Prudhoe Bay, by 2035. Development restrictions imposed by the administration of former President Biden would be lifted.
Oil companies have been interested in NPR-A development, with ConocoPhillips’ Willow Project being the largest recent effort in the area.
Importantly for the state, the committee is proposing that Alaska receive 90% of all rentals and royalties from oil and gas leasing on North Slope federal land starting in fiscal year 2035, an increase from the current share of 50% of royalties. The same 90% share would apply for Cook Inlet leases.
The state would continue to receive 50% of royalties, rental fees and other bonuses before 2035. Currently, most of those royalties go to communities on the North Slope.
If the royalty change is adopted, it would have significant positive effects for state finances. Currently, Alaska subsidizes development in NPRA via tax credits, but the lack of royalty revenue means that the state’s subsidy will take many years to be paid off.
The Alaska Legislature voted by a combined 57-2 margin to support a resolution asking for the 90-10 split to be adopted by Congress.
The committee’s proposal also would lower the federal royalty rate — which was raised by the Biden administration — diminishing the amount of money the state would receive under successful leases.
Ambler Road
Section 201 of the committee’s proposal would approve a right-of-way permit for the proposed Ambler Road, which would connect the Dalton Highway to a mining district in Northwest Alaska.
The Biden administration opposed the project, but the congressional language would take matters back to where they stood in 2020, said Murkowski staff members.
The Ambler Road remains in litigation, with lawsuits by environmental groups opposing it, and lawsuits by the state and Alaska’s state-owned investment bank supporting it.
Logging
One section of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee concept would significantly increase the amount of logging required on federal land. The U.S. Forest Service would be required to significantly increase the amount of timber sold to loggers, and the Forest Service would be required to sign at least 40 long-term timber sales contracts involving national forests.
Those kinds of long-term sales contracts contributed to the establishment of Southeast Alaska’s pulp mills, which relied on harvests from the Tongass National Forest.
Most timber harvests from the Tongass currently are exported internationally without processing in the United States.
The Bureau of Land Management would also be required to enter into long-term timber harvest contracts with buyers.
Land sales
Section 301 of the committee plan requires the Bureau of Land Management to sell between 0.5-0.75% of eligible land and for the Forest Service to sell 0.5-0.75% of its eligible land.
The land eligible for sale doesn’t include national parks, preserves, landmarks, or land that’s already subject to a “valid existing right.”
For example, land already earmarked for transfer to an Alaska Native corporation, the state of Alaska, or the University of Alaska isn’t available for sale. Land that’s being leased for timber sales, mining or oil and gas drilling also isn’t available for sale.
In Alaska, the language requires that local Alaska Native tribes be consulted before a land sale, and it states that the sold land “shall be used solely for the development of housing or to address associated community needs.”
In a written statement, Sullivan said he sees the energy and natural resources committee’s land-sales provision as important for Alaskans.
“Alaskans are keenly aware of how the federal government’s ownership of 60 percent of Alaska’s lands can inhibit economic development and cause challenges for our communities, like exacerbating the severe shortage in affordable housing,” he said in the statement. “I worked to ensure Alaska’s federal lands are eligible under the ENR amendment, which will give us the opportunity to free up some Forest Service and BLM lands for additional housing, including lands around Southeast and Southcentral Alaska communities that are seeing a surge in demand due to the historic build-up of our military and Coast Guard assets.”
Sullivan said the language, and Trump’s presidency, offer a “historic opportunity” for the state, and if the bill’s language becomes law, he would work with the state to make the most of that opportunity.
In Southeast Alaska, many communities have high home prices and are surrounded by Forest Service lands.
Municipal officials in Ketchikan have asked for the release of some federal land, particularly on nearby Gravina Island, for homebuilding.
In Juneau, city officials are looking for available land, but city manager Katie Koester expressed skepticism that Forest Service land is buildable.
“That land is mostly mountains and ice fields … and if it were flat and easy to develop, it’s also far away from utilities,” she said.
“I just don’t see a lot of easily developable land that is owned by the federal government,” Koester said.
Maps published by the Bureau of Land Management show some available Forest Service land along the road leading to Juneau’s ski area, Eaglecrest, and some in a swampy area near one of its shopping malls.
She added that there may be individual parcels, here and there, that may make sense for development, “but our community, our Assembly, has been very vocal about public land staying in public ownership.”
In Anchorage, Mayor Suzanne LaFrance has launched a major homebuilding campaign, but the mayor’s office there said they’re not certain whether a federal land sale would help.
Under the language proposed by the Senate committee, and using maps published by the BLM, the Campbell Tract appears to be the largest piece of salable land in urban Anchorage. Some parts of Eagle River south of the spur road and north of the river also appear to qualify for sale.
“The BLM’s Campbell Tract is a recreational gem for Anchorage, providing residents and visitors with year-round access to undeveloped space and an extensive trail system,” the mayor’s office said in a written statement.
“We are open to using other federal lands suitable for housing development in areas not already used for recreation or other valuable purposes — for example, any unused, federally-owned parcels within the developed part of the Municipality.”
Where things stand
Ordinarily, a bill would need 60 votes in the Senate to bypass its filibuster rule. But Republicans are advancing the “Big, Beautiful Bill” under a complicated process called reconciliation.
If successful, the process means that a bill can pass with 51 votes, or 50 if it’s supported by the vice president’s tiebreaking vote.
Reconciliation starts when the Senate and House adopt a resolution that says how much they want to spend on the federal budget or change taxes.
Then, the Senate directs its various committees to come up with ways to make spending fit within that resolution, reconciling what the federal government is doing with what Congress planned.
Each Senate committee drafts a proposal for the federal departments that it oversees.
That’s where the Senate process stands right now.
Next, each committee’s work is examined to see whether it follows the Byrd Rule, which sets six tests to see whether an item can be done in reconciliation.
If a particular item fails one of those tests, it gets stripped out. Colloquially, in the Senate, this is known as going through the “Byrd bath.”
When that’s done, what follows is a “vote-a-rama,” where the Senate votes on each committee’s language and senators have a chance to offer amendments.
Because of limits on the time allowed for debate, the votes often proceed quickly.
Once the Senate is done with its work, its version of the budget must be combined and compromised with a different version that has gone through a similar process in the House.
Once the House and Senate have agreed on the same version of the budget, it goes to the president for his signature.
