A new proposal by U.S. Senate Republicans could change the future of public lands in the West, including Colorado. The plan suggests selling off millions of acres of federal land to raise money and support housing development.
While supporters see this as smart land management, critics worry it could damage the environment, reduce public access, and hurt Colorado’s outdoor economy.
What Is the Land Sale Proposal?
As part of a larger bill called President Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill,” the plan would allow the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the U.S. Forest Service to sell between 2.2 and 3.3 million acres of federal land in eleven western states, including Colorado.
These land parcels would be listed every 60 days, and preference would be given to pieces of land that are near roads, buildings, or other developments. However, national parks, monuments, wilderness, and recreational areas would not be for sale. The sold land could only be used for housing development.
How Does It Affect Colorado
Colorado has over 24 million acres of federal land, which makes up about 36% of the entire state. The BLM manages 8.3 million acres, and the U.S. Forest Service manages another 16 million. That means Colorado could see a significant part of its public land put up for sale.
Critics say the plan could harm local wildlife, reduce outdoor activities like hiking, fishing, and hunting, and negatively impact the state’s $17 billion outdoor recreation industry.
Support and Opposition
Colorado Congressman Joe Neguse, a Democrat, has strongly opposed the plan. He calls it a “five-alarm fire” for anyone who enjoys or depends on public lands, like hunters, ranchers, and conservationists. He also worries that children and future generations might lose the chance to enjoy these natural areas.
In contrast, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum supports the proposal. He says only a small amount of land will be sold—less than 1% of the 640 million acres owned by the federal government. According to Burgum, the land chosen for sale will not include valuable natural spaces, but rather unused areas near highways or developments.
Republican Congresswoman Lauren Boebert also supports the plan. She believes it helps rural communities by giving state and local governments more control over nearby land. Boebert argues the backlash is “out of touch” with the needs of people living in less populated areas.
So far, other Republican Congress members from Colorado—Gabe Evans, Jeff Hurd, and Jeff Crank—have not shared their positions on the Senate version of the bill. Hurd did oppose a similar version in the House earlier.
Money and Land Management
If passed, the land sales could bring in $5 to $10 billion over the next ten years. Most of this money would be used to help reduce the national budget deficit. Supporters say this is a smart use of underused land. Opponents, however, argue that selling land for short-term profits could lead to long-term environmental damage.
The debate over selling federal land in Colorado and other western states is heating up. While some see it as a solution to housing problems and a way to manage land better, others view it as a threat to nature, outdoor fun, and future generations’ right to explore the outdoors.
As the proposal moves forward in the U.S. Senate, the people of Colorado and across the country will need to decide: What is the true value of our public lands?