LAKE TAHOE, Nev. / Calif. – The Senate is currently considering its version of the “Big Beautiful Bill” after the House passed the budgetary bill last month and it could have implications for treasured Tahoe landmarks.

The bill itself is a standard tool lawmakers use to balance the checkbook with components such as funding cuts, the activation or increase of energy resources (oil, timber, coal), and land leasing, but one component is relatively new—the sell off of public lands.

“Really never in our history has public lands and waters been something that was used as a budgetary item.”

That’s according to Katie Hawkins with Outdoor Alliance, who warns this could set a dangerous precedent.

“It sets the example that this can be done in the future,” Hawkins says. “If it does set the precedent that this can happen year over year, what does that mean?”

Last month, the House pulled a public land sale provision from their version of the bill after bipartisan outcry. It was to the relief of some, but that relief was short-lived after Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) added this public land sell-off amendment to the Senate’s version

What could this potential D.C. decision mean for the Tahoe region?

Some fear it could spell the sell-off of prized regions of Lake Tahoe and Truckee like the Inspiration Point lookout of Emerald Bay, areas surrounding Fallen Leaf Lake, and Kiva Beach, in addition to campgrounds around Boca Lake near the Truckee region, to name a few.

That’s because these regions all fall on National Forest Service land, which the bill calls for the mandatory .5-.75% disposal of for the purpose of housing. It also calls for another .5-.75% of Bureau of Land Management land, which impacts the basin very little as there’s no BLM land here.

A majority of the region’s ski resorts lie within National Forest lands as well, including Heavenly, Kirkwood, Sierra-at-Tahoe, Mt. Rose and Alpine Meadows, raising questions of what could happen to the ski industry.

As proposed, the bill would allow “interested parties” to nominate tracts of land for potential purchase in the 11 eligible states, which includes California and Nevada.

Some worry this opens up America’s public lands to foreign interests.

It also directs the Secretary of the Interior to select and regularly roll out certain tracts of land for sale every 60 days at a price “not less than fair market value.”

It could all start happening within 60 days of enactment and continue until the Secretary meets the mandatory percentage, a total of between 2.02 and 3.04 million acres. The bill gives the Secretary five years to reach that mark.

“Once it’s gone, it’s gone,” Hawkins says. “We can’t get these lands back in the federal register or back in the hands of the American people.”

Eligible lands for disposal include any BLM or Forest Service land except those federally protected, subject to valid existing rights, or outside of the 11 eligible states. Federally protected areas include National Parks, National Trail Systems, National Recreation Areas, and Wilderness Areas.

According to the International Mountain Biking Association, most of our western mountain bike trails are on lands eligible for sale. An Outdoor Alliance analysis shows nearly 100,000 miles of trail are on land that would be eligible for sale. In Tahoe, that includes Corral Trail, Mr. Toad’s and portions of the Tahoe Rim Trail.

The Tahoe Area Mountain Biking Association (TAMBA) is engaged in discussions pushing back against the public land sell-off.

“We will continue working with our partners to ensure that our voices are heard in support of keeping public lands in public hands,” TAMBA executive director, Drew Bray says.

Some believe the impacts would ripple beyond recreation.

“It would be incredibly damaging to our economy in the Truckee/Tahoe region and the Sierra, which rely in part on tourism to our public lands,” David Polivy says, owner of Tahoe Mountain Sports.

Nevada County Commissioner Hardy Bullock says, “Communities like ours depend on easily accessible public lands as a major pillar of our economy, and are a reason so many of us call this place home. Selling them off to the highest bidder would see significant long-term negative consequences for conservation, diminished Native American rights and cultural heritage sites, and reduced or eliminated public access to our treasured outdoor resources.”

The Wilderness Society has created an interactive map (sources data from BLM, USFS, NPS, USGS, and the reconciliation bill text) revealing land eligible for sale with eligible Forest Service land in dark green and BLM land in orange across the 11 eligible western states. The Outdoor Alliance has also created a map revealing these regions.

“It’s alarming, to be honest,” Hawkins says.

“But also, too, this isn’t a vehicle to help address housing,” Hawkins continues.

The bill limits the land disposed to be solely used for the development of housing but goes on to state “or to address associated infrastructure to support local housing needs.” It also doesn’t specify what type of housing and could be anything from workforce housing to the wealthy elites’ next consecutive home.

Hawkins says, “The language is vague for a reason,” and adds, “It leaves a lot of ambiguity and opportunity for other people to advance their own interest and not the interest of the community or the people that care about public lands and waters.”

The bill does outline priorities the Secretary shall consider when selecting land for disposal. Those priority considerations are land that is nominated by states or local government, are adjacent to existing developed areas, and have access to existing infrastructure or are suitable for residential housing. However, Hawkins says these lands often don’t have the infrastructure to support housing.

The bill also says the Secretary shall consult the governor of the state regarding the suitability of the area for residential housing, each applicable local government, and the applicable tribe.

While the bill seemingly outlines these and other limitations, Hawkins explains it bypasses the ultimate safeguard—public input.

“Who gets to say how these lands are used? It’s not you or me,” Hawkins expresses. “It leaves it very open to interpretation and that’s what’s alarming.”

And although the bill directs the consultation with tribes, they are not given priority considerations to purchase land like states or local governments are.

In a mid-week update, republican leaders are tentatively planning for an initial procedural vote on the bill as soon as Wednesday and potentially a final vote shortly thereafter.

“There’s a real opportunity here for this to happen if we are not engaged,” Hawkins says and encourages the public to contact their members of Congress.