Much of the land used by Southern Californians for hiking, camping and other outdoor recreation belongs to Uncle Sam.

But environmentalists and outdoor enthusiasts fear the budget reconciliation bill — the “Big, Beautiful Bill,” as President Donald Trump calls it — being hashed out by congressional Republicans will put millions of those acres, set aside as pristine wilderness for future generations, on the auction block.

Public lands advocates are breathing easier this week after the Senate parliamentarian, a nonpartisan rules expert whose decisions are almost always followed, stripped a plan to include a federal land sell-off from the Senate bill, which must be passed by July 4 to meet a GOP deadline.

The proposal from Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah could have applied to 16 million acres in California, including parts of the Angeles, Cleveland and San Bernardino national forests, according to the pro-conservation Wilderness Society.

In a post on X, formerly known as Twitter, Lee wrote he’d revise his proposal that seeks to sell federal land for housing development.

“Housing prices are crushing families and keeping young Americans from living where they grew up,” wrote Lee, who chairs the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. “We need to change that.”

The Wilderness Society developed an online map of lands it believes could have been sold  in Lee’s original plan. These areas include:

— Roadless parts of the northern Angeles National Forest.

• Coyote Dry Lake Bed outside of Joshua Tree National Park.

• Barton Flats south of Big Bear in the San Bernardino National Forest.

• Parts of the Santa Ana Mountains in the Cleveland National Forest.

“The plan was to basically give billionaires, private developers and corporate polluters free rein to drill and mine our treasured landscapes across Southern California, locking out American families forever,” Mary Ann Ruiz, chair of the Sierra Club’s San Gorgonio Chapter — Riverside and San Bernardino counties — said via email.

With Lee reworking his proposal, “we remain on high alert and are watching every move,” Ruiz added.

The Hill reported Wednesday, June 25, that Lee’s new plan would sell off as much as 1.2 million acres of Bureau of Land Management property nationwide, down from the 2.2 million to 3.3 million acres in the senator’s earlier proposal.

National forests are exempt and any sales would be “‘solely for the development of housing or to address any infrastructure and amenities to support local needs associated with housing,’” The Hill reported.

It’s not clear what California lands could be for sale in Lee’s latest plan. Ruiz fears lands near Twentynine Palms just outside Joshua Tree and acres in the Coachella Valley could still go on the auction block.

“Losing these lands would be a tragedy,” she said. “They encompass critical habitat for endangered and rare species. They also make up beloved spots for hiking, camping and bouldering.”

Ruiz called the prospect of selling public lands “an attack on California’s $81.5 billion outdoor recreation economy.”

“Outfitters, ranchers, small businesses, and entire local communities rely on public lands to sustain their livelihoods,” she said. “They stand to lose everything if this sell-off moves forward.”

It’s unclear whether Lee’s plan will move forward. His first proposal faced backlash from several GOP senators in Western states, and the Senate reconciliation bill, which will need to be merged with the version passed by House Republicans, can’t afford to lose more than three GOP votes.

About 45% of California’s roughly 100 million acres is owned by the federal government through national forests, parks and monuments like the newly created Chuckwalla National Monument in Riverside County.

Trump has long sought to open up federal acres to oil and gas drilling, logging and other natural resource extractions. The U.S. Department of Justice recently said Trump had the power to abolish national monuments, although that legal opinion is disputed by at least some legal scholars.

While opposing “broad-based federal land sales,” the American Conservation Coalition, which favors conservative approaches to environmental issues, supports more targeted sales.

“Many federal lands have been mismanaged for decades, with massive backlogs in maintenance in the national parks, national forests, and (land management bureau) lands,” read a statement on the coalition website.

“Years of environmental review and litigation have exposed our federal lands and rural communities to massive wildfires.”

Both of California’s senators — Democrats Alex Padilla and Adam Schiff — oppose selling public lands, as do members of both parties in Southern California’s House of Representatives delegation.

“Senator Lee’s proposal to sell off millions of acres of public lands to help pay for President Trump’s billionaire tax cuts is an unacceptable betrayal of our environment, health, and quality of life,” Rep. Judy Chu, D-Pasadena, said via email.

Federal lands in Riverside County and elsewhere “provide extraordinary recreational opportunities,” Rep. Ken Calvert, R-Corona, said via email

“I believe these invaluable assets must be protected for future generations, especially our National Park Service and Forest Service lands,” Calvert said. “In limited cases where federal agencies deem any lands to be in excess or suitable for disposal following a careful review, we should transfer or sell excess properties in accordance with existing federal guidance.”

Rep. Jay Obernolte, R-Hesperia, whose district includes land in the San Bernardino National Forest, said he had “serious concerns” about Lee’s original proposal and noted a similar plan was removed from the House budget reconciliation bill.

“My concerns are (that) lands are public for a reason, and we want to make sure that we preserve the public’s ability to access those lands in perpetuity, which transferring them to private ownership would not do,” Obernolte said.

Obernolte said he’s open to limited federal land sales. The Inyo County city of Bishop, which Obernolte used to represent, is landlocked by federal lands that stifle its room to grow, he said.

“But when you talk about part of a national forest or part of lands that have been set aside as protected, (it’s) absolutely unacceptable,” Obernolte added.