6 Ugly Oil and Gas Outcomes From the ‘Beautiful’ Bill

With this summer’s passage of H.R. 1 , the so-called “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” the future of more than 200 million acres of public lands now hangs in the balance, including dozens of national parks. This bill is a blueprint for expanded oil and gas leasing and drilling that strips away safeguards established in the past several years.

This bill doesn’t just encourage fossil fuel leasing and extraction — it forces it, while gutting oversight, meaningful public engagement and accountability, and protection for some of our nation’s most iconic landscapes.

This mandate puts the oil and gas industry squarely in the driver’s seat over landscapes deserving of protection. It prioritizes fossil fuel extraction over conservation, recreation, cultural resources and the long-term health of our public lands, undermining policies like the Public Lands Rule that were created to protect our most critical landscapes.

Public lands available for oil and gas leasing are managed for multiple uses. These include grazing, recreation and conservation as well as drilling and extraction. It is the Bureau of Land Management’s duty to balance these uses to meet the needs of both present and future generations. But with the passage of H.R. 1, Congress just stripped away the bureau’s ability to balance these uses if a company wants to drill on public lands, effectively thwarting the bureau’s authority and dramatically weakening the public’s voice.

Over 80 national park sites border public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management, including Grand Canyon, Arches, and Joshua Tree national parks and Dinosaur National Monument.

Here are six main issues we are concerned about.

1. Public land lease sales will be required in park landscapes every three months in nine states.

What the legislation does

• Mandates the Bureau of Land Management to hold a minimum total of 28 oil and gas lease sales every year across nine states (Alaska, Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, Nevada, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Utah and Wyoming) — even if there is no demand from the oil industry and despite environmental impacts.

• This leasing treadmill will continue essentially until every parcel of public land open for leasing is sold for development. It also requires the bureau to offer for sale any parcel of land nominated by the industry for leasing within 18 months of that nomination.

Why this matters

Before the passage of H.R. 1, the bureau had discretion to decide if, when and where to lease public lands for oil and gas.

About 80% of all lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management (roughly 200 million acres of public lands) are open to oil and gas leasing, and many of these areas are close by and adjacent to our national parks. There are also an additional 57 million acres of private “split-estate” lands available for oil and gas leasing where the bureau manages the minerals underground. Heavily polluted parks like Kings Canyon and Sequoia stand as examples of parks threatened by split estate leasing.

Before H.R. 1, the public was afforded a real say in advocating against leasing in sensitive areas, but H.R. 1 now strips that away and gives oil and gas leasing absolute priority, provided companies submit a nomination to lease the area.

The scale of lease sales will also drain staff time and resources from other important Bureau of Land Management work, including landscape restoration and habitat improvements. This makes it nearly impossible for the bureau to guide leasing away from sensitive areas and virtually guarantees national parks will be caught in the crossfire.

The takeaway

National parks like Carlsbad Caverns, Theodore Roosevelt, Grand Teton, Canyonlands and Arches and Dinosaur National Monument are surrounded by public lands open for oil and gas leasing. Under H.R. 1, a simple nomination to lease any of these lands requires the Bureau of Land Management to offer them for sale regardless of what the public, the National Park Service, the bureau or other stakeholders (including the public) have to say. If the bureau can’t say “no” despite its better judgement, waterways and wildlife habitat will be lost.

2. Local protections will be wiped out

What the legislation does

H.R. 1 blocks the Bureau of Land Management from adding collaboratively designed protections to avoid, minimize or mitigate impacts to other public resources from oil and gas development, unless those protective measures were included in the area’s Resource Management Plan (RMP).

Why this matters

RMPs guide local land use planning decisions on public lands under the bureau’s management — areas managed for “multiple use” that otherwise have not been designated for conservation (such as national monuments or national conservation areas).

In theory, RMPs are supposed to be updated every 15 years or so, but because Congress has not invested adequately in public land agencies, the bureau’s ability to update its plans on a regular basis has been hampered.
This means many RMPs are outdated and lack more recent on-the-ground conditions, scientific information and socioeconomic data that are used to determine appropriate land uses.

RMPs include mitigation measures that have been a powerful tool the bureau and the public can use in collaboration with other agencies, such as the National Park Service and local governments, as they work together to make sure development is done in ways to either avoid or minimize the impacts to area resources, such as clean water, wildlife and dark skies.

The takeaway

Even if a new well threatens a sacred site, migration corridor or a park viewshed, if it’s not protected by an old resource plan, the Bureau of Land Management’s hands are tied and cannot work with other agencies, the public or even industry to protect those resource concerns.

3. Public input will be diminished

What the legislation does

H.R. 1 completely guts public input into the oil and gas leasing process, handing decision-making power entirely to the oil and gas industry.

Why this matters

Previously, the public had meaningful opportunities to influence which parcels were offered for sale and which were tabled for further consideration through comment periods and direct communication with the agency.

In these instances, the public could flag problematic parcels that may conflict with wildlife habitat, recreation opportunities, and viewsheds and the Bureau of Land Management could use its discretion to say no based on those concerns.

The takeaway

Without public participation, industry now drives the future of public land management, which can cost us irreplaceable resources across park landscapes. With the bureau’s discretion to say no to leasing so severely limited, public pressure and demands to protect sensitive areas are significantly diminished.

4. Public land access will be lost

What the legislation does

Non-competitive leasing is back. That means companies can purchase unsold parcels the day after the sale for just $1.50 an acre. And the $5 per acre nomination fee for parcels has been removed.

Why this matters

Bringing back non-competitive leasing and eliminating the nominal $5 per acre nomination fee are a direct blow to access to public lands. It reduces opportunities for these lands to be put to other uses, such as conservation, recreation or renewable energy. And once a lease is issued, companies can hold that lease — even if no drilling happens — and block other uses of that land.

Access to public lands and Bureau of Land Management flexibility to manage multiple uses and coordinate with neighboring land management agencies, such as the Park Service, are essential to providing park visitors with recreation opportunities on park-adjacent public lands.

The takeaway

H.R. 1 actively encourages public lands to be locked up in speculative oil and gas leases, even if they are not developed, and hinders public access to these lands and prevents other uses from occurring.

5. Reduced costs to develop oil and gas on public lands will fuel the climate crisis

What the legislation does

H.R. 1 slashes oil and gas royalty rates, making it cheaper to drill on public lands. The share of profits returned to taxpayers reverts to the same level established in 1920.

Why this matters

Royalties are paid on oil and gas production on public lands because the minerals are publicly owned resources managed by the Bureau of Land Management. A percentage of the profits made off the resource are returned to local communities and the states. These funds help support local infrastructure like schools, parks and playgrounds. H.R. 1 reduces the royalty rate by 25% — a move wholly out of line with current trends in state policy where royalty rates are being increased to support essential public services.

The takeaway

H.R. 1 has made leasing and developing oil and gas on public lands far cheaper, therefore increasing the likelihood of development. Amid the climate crisis, we need to ensure our public lands are part of the climate solution ― not fueling the crisis.

6. The new policies aren’t driven by demand

What the legislation does

With over 200 million acres of public land already open to oil and gas companies for fossil fuel extraction and just 12 million acres actively producing, there is no demand driving expanded access. Nearly half isn’t even being used — 44% of total acres under lease (over 9.5 million in total) are currently inactive or idle and 22 million total are under lease.

The biggest step the public can take now is telling the Bureau of Land Management to keep its Public Lands Rule.

That means there is more than enough public land already available for oil and gas leasing. In addition, the oil and gas industry is sitting on over 6,000 approved but unused drilling permits. And just last year, the United States set an all-time global crude oil production record.

What does this mean? When the attempts to sell our public lands to the highest bidder failed, Congress went behind our backs and instead made a quiet deal to sell out our public lands.

Why this matters

People don’t travel from around the world to visit national parks only to see oil rigs on the horizon. Poorly sited energy development could degrade the very experiences that make places like Canyonlands, Carlsbad Caverns and the Grand Canyon special and so unforgettable.

The takeaway

The industry does not need any more access to public lands for oil and gas. They are sitting on nearly 10 million acres of unused leases and roughly 7,000 approved but unused drilling permits. This wasn’t about more drilling — it was a secretive move to sell off our public lands.

We need reforms, not rollbacks

We should be protecting public lands by preventing harmful oil and gas development near national parks and monuments. We also should be managing public lands as an integral climate solution and providing funding to clean up abandoned wells. Additionally, we must hold the oil and gas industry — not taxpayers — accountable for the pollution and cleanup they create.

While H.R. 1 fast-tracks more drilling and mining on public lands, there is one important safeguard still in place. The Public Lands Rule, finalized in April 2024, is a direct response to the bureau’s long history of favoring extraction over other uses on public lands. It acknowledges the need to protect areas of the highest natural and cultural values and commits the Bureau of Land Management to restoration and stewardship.

This generational policy shift is helping to correct decades of imbalance and create new conservation and restoration opportunities within our national park landscapes. Unfortunately, the administration wants to rescind this rule just two months after using the “One Big Beautiful Bill” to hand the keys to our public lands over to the oil and gas industry. The biggest step the public can take now is telling the Bureau of Land Management to keep its Public Lands Rule. NPCA encourages park advocates to speak out during the public comment period.