How Selling Rural Land and Cutting National Park Budget Hurt the Economy

A troubling trend is gaining momentum across the United States: the federal government is both proposing to sell off vast tracts of rural public land and significantly cutting funding to the National Park Service. Though these actions may seem like isolated cost-saving measures, they carry far-reaching consequences for local economies, especially those in rural and tourism-dependent areas. From reduced visitors to weakened environmental protections, the combined impact could disrupt community livelihoods, small businesses, and long-term economic resilience.

Recent legislative proposals have reignited debates over the future of federal land ownership. Lawmakers have introduced bills to sell off millions of acres of federally managed land, particularly in Western states like Utah, Nevada, and Wyoming (San Antonio Express-News). While supporters argue that selling underused or inaccessible land could reduce federal costs, the local communities rely on them for grazing, hunting, fishing, tourism, and outdoor recreation. Turning these lands over to private developers or extractive industries could cut off public access and weaken the rural tourism and outdoor economy, which has become a key pillar in many counties. For example, small-town businesses that cater to hikers, campers, and wildlife enthusiasts could see a steep decline in customers if land is fenced off or developed. Ranchers may lose affordable grazing options, forcing them to reduce herd sizes or shut down entirely. Most importantly, land that supports sustainable economic activity could instead be exploited in ways that offer short-term profits but long-term losses. These lands provide essential “ecosystem services” such as water purification, flood control, and wildfire mitigation. Selling them off or neglecting their care could lead to higher costs in the future through disaster response and infrastructure damage.

Simultaneously, the National Park Service is facing some of the largest proposed budget cuts in decades. The House's 2025 budget proposal includes over $267 million in reductions, which is more than 30% of its operations budget (National Parks Conservation Association). These cuts would result in major staff reductions, facility closures, reduced visitor services, and delays in essential maintenance. National parks contribute massively to local economies: in 2023 alone, visitor spending around parks generated $55.6 billion in economic output and supported over 415,000 jobs across the country (National Park Service). Communities near places like Yosemite, the Grand Canyon, and Zion National Park rely on tourists for business in hotels, restaurants, retail shops, and tour services. If budget cuts cause fewer rangers, shorter operating hours, and degraded facilities, tourists may choose to go elsewhere, leading to real income loss for nearby towns. These cuts have already begun to strain visitor experiences, with reports of overflowing trash cans, fewer safety patrols, and delayed wildfire response (Washington Post).

While selling public lands and reducing national park funding may seem like cost-saving measures, they could seriously impact the livelihoods of rural communities and the health of our environment. As stewards of our future, we must speak up for policies that protect both local economies and the natural resources we all share. 

Aug. 17, 2025 | Michelle Yin @ Non-Toxic SGV