A Draft Bill May Permanently Damage U.S. Skiing. Here’s How We Can Stop It.

Over 100 American ski resorts are at risk of having their lands sold under a draft U.S. Senate bill.

A draft bill in the U.S. Senate has ignited national debate, calling for the sale of as many as 3.3 million acres of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and U.S. Forest Service. While it’s framed as a fiscally responsible measure to reduce the federal deficit and ease the housing crisis, the proposal has drawn criticism from environmentalists, recreation advocates, and even outdoor industry executives.

Proponents say we won’t notice much and that the impacted areas are paltry compared to the nation's total public land footprint, but others see it as the start of a dangerous precedent that could permanently alter America’s outdoor recreation economy—including its ski industry.

Special Use Permits (SUPs) have allowed ski resorts such as Alta (pictured above) to operate on public land for nearly a century.

Historical Context: How Public Lands Shaped Skiing

Before getting into the impacts of this bill, it’s important to understand how we got to so much publicly-owned ski resort land in the first place. The partnership between the U.S. Forest Service and ski resorts didn’t happen by accident—it was the result of a deliberate policy shift after World War II. In the late 1940s, the U.S. Forest Service shifted from a purely industrial to a more recreational focus, and it began issuing Special Use Permits (SUPs) to operators who wanted to build lifts, lodges, and trail systems on federal land. Under these permits, ski resorts would pay the federal government a portion of their revenue in exchange for access to operate on national forest land. But the government retained ownership of the land and set conditions on how it could be used, including environmental protections, seasonal closures, and public access guarantees like uphill skinning routes and backcountry trailheads.

This arrangement was seen as a win-win: local economies would benefit from tourism dollars, private operators would assume the risk and costs of development, and the federal government would retain ownership and regulatory authority over the land. The United States saw a huge boom in these partnerships that lasted through the early 1970s, and resorts like Aspen, Breckenridge, Heavenly, and Mount Hood Meadows owe their very existence to the availability of public lands. Today, over 100 American ski areas operate partially or fully on publicly-owned lands, including the vast majority of destination ski resorts that most people visit.

What the Bill Actually Proposes

If the U.S. Senate bill is passed with its present language, about 0.5-0.75% of the lands highlighted above are at risk of being sold off.

So what exactly is at stake in the recent budget proposal? The bill in front of the U.S. Senate, referred to colloquially as the "Big Beautiful Bill", mandates the sale of between 2.2 and 3.3 million acres of public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and U.S. Forest Service over the next five years, encompassing roughly 0.5-0.75% of their total holdings. These lands are spread across 11 Western states: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming—with a notable carve-out in Montana, secured by Senator Steve Daines’s opposition. It is worth noting that certain high-profile public lands are excluded from sale eligibility, including national parks, national monuments, wildlife refuges, and parcels with existing grazing rights. Despite the headline figure of surplus land being considered to sell off, it’s worth noting that the final 3 million or so acres will come from a much broader pool of eligible land that spans over 250 million acres.

If and when the bill is passed, these land sales will happen incredibly fast. Within 30 days of enactment, federal agencies must begin nominating parcels for sale, and they must publish new lists every 60 days until the acreage goal is met. Crucially, this process bypasses environmental review, public hearings, and direct community input. Although the bill includes a “tiered sale” structure giving state and local governments, as well as tribes, a right of first refusal, critics note that tribal access is not guaranteed and could be effectively sidelined. Meanwhile, 90% of the revenue generated from sales would go to the U.S. Treasury, with 5% allocated to the selling agency for maintenance backlogs and another 5% designated for local infrastructure.

So why these particular areas? The bill frames the sales as targeting “underutilized” federal lands near growing population centers to help ease housing shortages. On paper, this may not sound like the worst reasoning in the world; since development is so restricted on these lands, one could argue they artificially inhibit growth in some towns and small cities. However, independent analysis has found that only a small fraction—less than 2% of BLM and Forest Service lands—are realistically suitable for this type of development, with many of them too far from developed areas or too ecologically sensitive to be practical. And perhaps one of the biggest examples of this is ski resorts—according to research conducted by the Wilderness Society, essentially every destination ski area that’s not entirely privately owned, including Copper, Breckenridge, Vail, Aspen Snowmass, Alta, Snowbird, and Mammoth, among others, sits in part or fully in the eligible for sale area.

But it’s not just the quantity of potential land that’s raising concerns—it’s also the process under which it could be gone. On top of the speed and lack of environmental oversight that we discussed earlier, critics argue the bill sets up a no‑review, rapid‑sale mechanism that allows political and corporate interests to nominate and purchase public lands with minimal vetting. This risks irreversibly converting valuable recreation landscapes and sensitive ecosystems, including many of the ski resorts that we know and love, into private developments through a hasty and unpredictable process.

The public land underneath ski resorts such as Breckenridge and Copper (both pictured above) could be eligible for sale if this bill passes.

What Happens if Ski Resorts Own the Land?

So what happens if ski resort land happens to be sold as part of this initiative? One scenario would be resorts themselves purchasing the public BLM or Forest Service land they operate on. On the surface, this may not seem like the biggest deal—after all, these mountains already use this land on a daily basis—but in practice, the implications would be dramatic. This shift would release ski resorts from the restrictions of their Special Use Permits, meaning they could expand terrain, build lifts, or develop new infrastructure without undergoing the current rigorous environmental review process or needing to allow public comment. Notably, state and local agencies could still have some regulatory agency, and certain environmental restrictions like the Clean Water Act would still need to be followed.

Now, this circumstance wouldn’t exclusively be a bad thing: we could see shorter timelines for infrastructure improvements, additional nearby bar and restaurant opportunities, and potentially more ski-in/ski-out or close-by residential accommodations. Theoretically, new ski resorts could be a possibility as well, although it would take decades and extraordinary capital investment to make these resorts competitive with the destinations, so we think this is unlikely.

However, it’s also easy to envision situations where things go haywire. We could see the public resorts become closer in aesthetic to privately-owned ones like Big Sky and Deer Valley, with more condos and development across what should ideally be an isolated footprint. Access policies could also see significant revisions—resorts would no longer be obligated to permit uphill skiing routes or backcountry access through their terrain, and they could impose outright bans or introduce new fees at will. Under the worst case scenario, resorts could use this newfound autonomy to go fully or semi-private. We could see what's already happened at Powder Mountain in Utah, a resort that recently closed off a substantial percentage of its terrain but all but private homeowners, or we could theoretically see mountains following in the footsteps of resorts like Yellowstone Club and Wasatch Peaks Ranch, which are completely private to those who don’t own land. Finally, we could see some resorts spend more money than they could afford to in order to purchase the land beneath them—perhaps in some cases to avoid a hostile takeover. In doing so, they could be using up cash that would have otherwise been spent on infrastructural or capital investments, consequently leading to a stagnation in resort improvements, and ironically turning some regulatory constraints on development into financial ones. Wouldn’t it be crazy to see Vail Resorts buying Alterra’s land or the opposite way around? Well, if this bill goes through, that’s not overly far-fetched anymore.

If ski resorts buy their own land, we could see faster capital improvement timelines. But we could also see parts or all of these mountains close to the public like what’s currently happening at Powder Mountain (pictured above).

What Happens if Ski Resorts Don’t Own the Land?

But this brings up an interesting point—what happens if the resorts see their land go private, but they don’t own it? If third-party private buyers acquire land adjacent to or even beneath resort terrain, they could wield enormous leverage. The biggest worries would probably be for smaller, more local ski areas without the resources to bid for the land at a price the government would find attractive. There are dozens of smaller, independently-owned resorts that could be affected by this, but a few higher-profile examples include Monarch Mountain, Colorado, Mount Ashland, Oregon, Snow King, Wyoming, and two that are near and dear to experts: Mount Baker Ski Area in Washington and Silverton Mountain in Colorado.

Under these circumstances, affected resorts might find access roads, trailheads, or utility lines suddenly at the mercy of new owners demanding sky-high easements or renegotiated terms. The closest high-profile example we have of something like this is when POWDR ended up selling Park City to Vail Resorts under less-than-friendly conditions back in 2014—although unlike that time, where POWDR probably would have been able to avoid the situation if they had their paperwork in order, any new resorts facing this circumstance down the line probably won’t be saved by competent back office folks.

In the worst cases, the new land owners could block mountain access entirely, forcing costly operational changes or a hostile takeover or shutdown of the entire resort. Additionally, there's no guarantee that these new landowners would be conservation or recreation-minded; parcels surrounding ski terrain could be redeveloped into condos or shopping centers, or even industrial sites like timber and mining operations—drastically altering the wilderness aesthetic that many ski resorts hold so dear.

If ski resorts have their land purchased from under them by a third-party, there’s nothing protecting them from a hostile takeover or shutdown.

Environmental and Cultural Impacts

The ramifications of land privatization extend well beyond ski operations themselves. Forest fragmentation caused by piecemeal development increases the risk of wildfire and degrades wildlife habitats, making it theoretically more likely a natural disaster could occur at a resort. The cultural impact is just as significant: ski towns like Jackson Hole, Steamboat, and Breckenridge thrive on their proximity to public lands. Turning these wild zones into high-end condos or commercial strips risks gravely defacing the very outdoor heritage of these communities.

Legal challenges would also become more difficult. The Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which allows citizens to sue over improper government actions, wouldn’t apply to private land transactions unless specific easements or deed restrictions were in place—and nothing in the current bill requires such safeguards. Depending on the state, this could leave concerned stakeholders, local governments, and recreational users with virtually no legal recourse.

Backcountry skiing could be one of the hardest-hit aspects of mountain recreation. Much of the terrain adjacent to ski resorts is currently accessible via Forest Service land, making it the default environment for touring skiers and splitboarders. If these lands are privatized, access could be revoked overnight, and previously popular touring zones could suddenly be off-limits. Skiers and riders crossing these new boundaries could face trespassing charges, effectively criminalizing a form of recreation that has historically been free and open to all.

It’s extremely unlikely that every ski resort will be affected by this bill, but it sets a precedent that could theoretically be acted upon again later.

Counterarguments and Rebuttals

Less Than 1% of Public Lands Will Be Sold

So at this point, you might be revisiting the fact that this bill results in the sale of a relative sliver of public land, meaning the effects we just described are highly unlikely to occur at every resort in the country. However, the precedent it sets is deeply troubling. By creating a fast-track, no-review process for divesting federal land, it establishes a legal and political infrastructure that could easily be expanded. Today’s proposal involves 3 million acres. Future iterations could involve 30 million—or even lands currently protected under monument or park status. Once the actual procedural mechanism for land sales is in place, it’s a lot easier to get it back up and running to push it further.

It’s also worth noting that despite the argument this bill technically only affects a small amount of federal land totaling less than 1% of the footprint, this point overlooks the outsized value of land located near ski resorts, and we wouldn’t be surprised if resort-adjacent land ends up as an excess portion of the acreage sold should the bill go through. In addition, the total area proposed for sale is still astronomically huge, coming in at up to 3.3 million acres; to put this into perspective, this is bigger than the U.S. states of Delaware and Rhode Island combined, more than four times bigger than Yosemite National Park, and over 450 times bigger than Park City, which is the biggest ski resort in the United States. And even beyond the massive extent of this potential land selloff, these parcels are disproportionately important not just for winter sports, but for tourism, conservation, and recreation. Even small changes can have large ripple effects, especially when they alter long-standing access rights or disrupt ecologically sensitive areas. In policy, precedent often matters more than volume, and this bill would set a significant one.

Public Land Sales Will Fix Housing Shortages

Another argument is that the land could be used to alleviate the housing shortage in mountain towns. While housing is undeniably a critical issue, it’s important to highlight that the bill as proposed contains no requirement that the land be used for affordable or workforce housing—let alone the independent analyses that show that so little of this land could actually be practically used for that purpose. Opening these lands to the highest bidder could just as easily result in luxury developments, second homes, or corporate projects—outcomes that could exacerbate housing inequalities rather than solve them—let alone other industrial purposes that are outside the realm of housing entirely. In addition, even if affordable housing is what this land is used for, it could further aggravate the traffic issues to and from many of these ski resorts, especially given that the terrible public transportation circumstances facing many of these towns will force theoretical new residents to use cars.

The Sell-Off Will Bring Government Revenue

A final argument in favor of the land sales is that they would generate revenue for the federal government and help reduce the national deficit. But this is an incredibly shortsighted view that ignores both the long-term economic value of public lands and not-so-economic values Americans enjoy from using them. Outdoor recreation on federal lands—including hiking, hunting, and camping among other things in addition to winter sports themselves—generates billions of dollars in economic activity each year, and is the seeding ground for activities that contribute to the health, happiness, and adventure of Americans and many foreign tourists. Once these lands are sold, all of this risks being disrupted or permanently lost. It’s also worth emphasizing that even if you only consider the economic benefits, these land sales offer only a one-time infusion of cash, while responsible public land management offers continuous, renewable benefits. Selling off public assets to close short-term budget gaps is a fiscally reckless approach more akin to liquidating capital than reducing expenses. One way to put it is it’s like selling your house to pay off a credit card bill: it may bring in quick cash, but the long-term cost far outweighs the immediate gain.

“Valid Existing Rights” Will Protect Permitted Ski Resort Land

There’s also one argument we want to address not necessarily in favor of the bill, but one that claims that ski resort land is safe from the proposed sales. Text has circulated arguing that ski resorts operating on federal land hold “valid existing rights,” a term the bill uses to carve out exceptions. However, the bill lists specific inclusions of what qualifies as a “valid existing right,” and those inclusions are almost entirely focused on extractive industries: mining claims under the Mining Law of 1872, mineral leases under the Mineral Leasing Act, and rights-of-way issued under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act. Notably absent is any mention of recreational Special Use Permits—the exact type of agreement that authorizes ski resorts to operate on Forest Service land—or anything that says that the rights are not limited to the examples listed.

Some may argue that the text of the Special Use Permit itself protects the mountains, stating that:

“This permit is subject to all valid existing rights. Valid existing rights include those derived under mining and mineral leasing laws of the United States.”

However, this doesn’t mean the permit itself is a valid existing right. In fact, it means the opposite: the permit is subject to—or subordinate to—rights held under mining or mineral laws. So while the phrase “valid existing rights” appears in the permit, it does not imply the permit itself qualifies as one under the bill’s legal framework, meaning these ski area lands are very much unprotected from purchase.

While building affordable housing is a respectable cause, there’s no guarantee that the public lands being sold off will be used for this circumstance.

Final Thoughts

The proposed sell-off of public lands threatens to upend the delicate balance between private enterprise and public interest that has defined American skiing and riding, let alone the outdoors as a whole, for nearly a century. While the affected land may seem minuscule to the unassuming observer, the potential consequences are massive: unchecked development, weakened environmental protections, backcountry closures, and a dangerous precedent for future privatization. And while skiing and riding are things that are near and dear to probably everyone who’s watching this channel, many of you are also avid hikers, bikers, climbers, hunters, or fishers too, and this bill has the potential to affect those activities to the same or even bigger extents than the winter sports industry.

If you care about keeping public lands public, now is the time to act. Visit www.congress.gov/members and enter your ZIP code to find your House and Senate representatives. Call their office or send an email—it takes less than five minutes. Here’s a sample script:

"Hi, my name is [Your Name], and I'm a constituent from [Your City]. I'm calling to express my opposition to the proposed public lands sell-off in the Senate budget draft. As someone who values public access to outdoor recreation, including skiing and snowboarding, I believe we need to protect these lands, not privatize them. Please vote against any measure that weakens public land protections."

The land you ski, hike, and explore belongs to all of us. Let’s keep it that way.