A controversial provision backed by Rep. Mark Amodei (R-NV) to sell hundreds of thousands of acres of federally owned land in Nevada and Utah to generate revenue for Republicans’ tax and spending bill has been stripped out of the legislation by GOP leadership at the behest of Rep. Ryan Zinke (R-MT).

Amodei’s move in early May to add a surprise amendment to Republicans’ reconciliation bill generated an uproar among conservationists and Nevada Democrats, who pilloried him for including parcels in Clark County, which he does not represent, and for not keeping the proceeds of land sales in Nevada rather than going to the U.S. Treasury, as was done previously.

To that end, Rep. Dina Titus (D-NV) introduced an amendment during the Rules Committee’s marathon markup Wednesday to strip the Clark County acreage from the bill, while Rep. Susie Lee (D-NV) offered an amendment to take out land sales for parcels in Utah that run alongside a proposed water pipeline route that concerned water managers in other Colorado River states, including Nevada.

“Let the people of Southern Nevada have a say in what happens to their public treasures,” Titus said during her testimony.

But with Democrats out of power in both chambers of Congress, Nevada Democrats needed a Republican ally to have a chance at removing the land sale amendment. Zinke, the former Secretary of Interior during President Donald Trump’s first term, proved to be that member.

Zinke made the case publicly and privately to fellow Republicans that large-scale divestment from public lands was a “red line” for him, even calling the issue his “San Juan Hill.”

Lee and Titus spoke with Zinke in the aftermath of Amodei’s successful amendment introduction to make the case that the land sales did not belong in the bill. The issue made it to the highest rung of congressional leadership; Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) mediated between Zinke and Amodei to resolve the issue, according to a source with knowledge of the meeting.

Ultimately, Johnson agreed to accept Zinke’s red line. The Nevada and Utah land sales were removed from the bill late Wednesday via a manager’s amendment — a procedural tool that allows leadership to alter legislation while it is being marked up by the Rules Committee.

In an interview Thursday morning, Amodei said he and the four Utah Republicans, unlike Zinke, never threatened to tank the bill over the lands provisions, and that he accepted Republican leadership’s decision to strip the land sales. 

In doing so, Amodei said he banked political capital with leadership and received assurances that his Northern Nevada lands bill would be prioritized in committee.

Meanwhile, Nevada Democrats praised Zinke’s effort.

“I’m happy that my Republican colleagues, led by Rep. Zinke, acknowledged that it would wrongfully change the way federal lands are managed,” Lee said in a statement to The Nevada Independent. “They stood their ground and we were able to stop the unprecedented Amodei proposal.”

Lee also aimed to bring Arizona Republicans onboard, given that the proposed Utah pipeline could divert water from their state. She told The Nevada Independent that she spoke with Reps. Andy Biggs, Paul Gosar and Eli Crane — all members of the hardline House Freedom Caucus — on the House floor about the potential threat to Arizona’s water. And Lee brought the issue up to Scott Cameron, a Trump appointee overseeing the Bureau of Reclamation.

While the Nevada public lands saga is temporarily over (unless the Senate decides to revive the proposal), the episode set off an ugly rift between Amodei and Nevada’s congressional Democrats, who had previously enjoyed a fairly collegial relationship. 

That dynamic has yet to be resolved. Titus and Lee expressed their frustration with him during their testimonies at the Rules Committee meeting. Rep. Joe Neguse (D-CO), meanwhile, warned Republicans that if they moved forward with Amodei’s proposal, Democrats may pass new wilderness designations in districts represented by Republicans if they take the majority in 2026, regardless of what those Republicans think.

"Majorities come, majorities go,” he said. “And my colleagues will have reaped what they sow insofar as this measure is included."

This story was updated at 8:30 a.m. on 5/22/25 to include comment from Rep. Mark Amodei.