A House GOP plan to sell millions of acres of public lands to the highest bidder has angered conservationists, who argued the proposal could fleece taxpayers and potentially harm local economies.

The proposal was included on page 33 of the House's proposed $1 trillion fiscal 2013 budget released earlier this week.

In addition to broad cuts to Energy Department programs and a vast expansion of oil and gas development, the GOP budget appears to endorse a bill by Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) that would require the sale of 3.3 million acres of federal lands in 10 Western states that the Clinton administration deemed "suitable for disposal."

The bill would sell lands identified in a 1997 Interior Department report that, at the time, were deemed suitable for sale or exchange to benefit the Everglades restoration effort in Florida, according to the Bureau of Land Management.

Chaffetz in testimony to the House Natural Resources Committee last October said the bill would reduce federal management costs and provide local governments with an additional tax base to fund public education and other services (E&E Daily, Oct. 26, 2011).

The GOP budget echoes recent sentiments from Republican presidential candidates, including Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum and Ron Paul, who have each questioned the need for federal land ownership.

But environmentalists yesterday said the proposal is a misguided attempt to shed an irreplaceable public asset for tourists, sportsmen and wildlife.

"Our public lands have tremendous value, and selling them off would harm local economies and communities," the Wilderness Society said in a blog post. "Our lands are not only vital for hunting, fishing, camping and hiking, they are critical to the recreation economy that generates a trillion dollars every year."

Jessica Goad, of the Center for American Progress' Public Lands Project, noted the Republican budget blueprint also suggests "reducing appropriations to various agencies" to coax them into selling more lands. "If done correctly, taxpayers could recoup billions of dollars from selling unused government property," the plan notes.

"Selling off public lands, including national parks, has recently been high on various Republicans' wish lists," Goad said, noting a proposal last month by Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) to sell national parks.

The Obama administration last fall said it "strongly opposes" the Chaffetz measure, arguing the bill could impede grazing rights and could siphon agency resources away from activities including oil and gas development.

"A mandate to sell large blocks of land would severely affect the BLM's ability to respond to the nation's energy needs and the needs of local communities," said BLM Deputy Director Mike Pool. "In many cases, the end result would be costs in excess of any value realized, and further deflated land values in struggling Western communities."

In addition, the lands identified in the Clinton report face impediments to disposal including lack of legal access, the presence of mineral leases and mining claims, threatened and endangered species habitat, historical and cultural values, hazardous material contamination, and title conflicts, Pool said.

BLM has instead advocated for Congress to reauthorize the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act, which allows BLM to sell lands and use the revenue to cover administrative costs and purchase environmentally valuable lands for Interior agencies.

The 1997 report does not offer an appraisal of what the lands are worth. Proponents of the bill say the lands could fetch an estimated $1 billion in federal revenue.

"I have counties in my state where more than 80 percent of the land is owned by the federal government," Chaffetz told E&E Daily last fall. "They can't tax the land. There isn't the revenue we need to educate our children and pay for services."

Others have argued the government should not be purchasing new lands when Interior faces a multibillion-dollar maintenance backlog.

Congress in 1976 passed a law stating that federal lands should generally be retained unless disposal is in the "national interest."