Rep. Mark Amodei’s amendment to put federal land in Nevada up for sale almost tanked President Donald Trump’s budget bill before it was stripped out in the wee hours of Thursday morning.

The legislation squeaked by in the U.S. House with a vote of 215 to 214. All Democrats and two Republicans opposed it.

It goes next to the Senate, where if passed it would fulfill numerous Trump campaign promises including no taxes on tips, overtime or interest on American-made cars; more border security; and a permanent extension of tax cuts from Trump’s first term.

It’s also expected to add $3.3 trillion to the nation’s deficit over the next 10 years.

The “big, beautiful bill” as Trump calls it, was still in limbo late Wednesday, though, in part because of Nevada.

Amodei, a Republican, thinks the drama may help the state in the long run.

“All this represented was a chance to jump start the whole long federal lands process so it would have been nice if it was in there,” he told the RGJ Thursday.

“But, hey, at the end of the day, I think we got more money in the bank for goodwill with leadership.”

Amodei had put the amendment forward at the behest of House leadership including Speaker Mike Johnson because proceeds from sales of federal land in Nevada and Utah would’ve been added to the U.S. Treasury’s general fund.

He saw it as a first step toward getting approval for a more comprehensive lands bill that includes conservation and tribal efforts.

Another way he thinks he got in the good graces of House leadership is by not making a stink when Rep. Ryan Zinke, a Montana Republican, threatened to scuttle the massive tax-and-spending bill if the amendment wasn’t taken out.

“This was my San Juan Hill,” Zinke said on social media, referring to a famous battle in the Spanish-American War. “God isn’t creating more land, once it’s sold, we will never get it back. This is a big win for all Americans who love our public lands.”

Amodei finds it curious that Zinke suddenly opposes federal land sales.

“Let’s make it really clear: Without Ryan Zinke threatening to vote against the bill that we just passed, none of this would have happened,” he said.

“We met with the speaker and Zinke was like, ‘It’s just a red line for me. I won’t sell any federal land,’” Amodei said. “This is even though he supported sales of federal land and millions of acres of chemical or petroleum leasing while he was secretary of Interior” during Trump’s first term.

Zinke did not help his cause for future legislative proposals by threatening House leaders on a bill important to them for advancing Trump’s agenda.

“The bill’s a good bill,” Amodei said of the budget bill, adding that he doesn’t like making threats. “I don’t operate that way. I’m not going to try to destroy my way to success. So if (removing the amendment) is ultimately what we need to do to pass the bill, that’s fine.”

Criticism from Nevada’s other representatives

Also trying to scuttle Amodei’s amendment were Reps. Dina Titus and Susie Lee, Democrats from Southern Nevada.

They hammered the plan in testimony Wednesday before the House Rules Committee, where they introduced their own amendments — Titus’ would’ve stripped Clark County land from the bill while Lee’s was related to concerns over Colorado River water destined for Southern Nevada.

“The Amodei amendment would have created an additional burden on taxpayers who would have ultimately had to front the costs of infrastructure improvements needed for developments in distant areas,” Titus said in a statement.

She added that it would have broken precedent by sending money back to Washington, D.C., rather than keeping it in Southern Nevada for investment in conservation, wildfire prevention efforts and public schools.

Amodei countered that the amendment would’ve allowed parcels previously identified by local officials to be released from federal control for possible sale.

Those sales still would’ve been subject to local approval and environmental review, Amodei said, and the sales would not have been required to proceed if the infrastructure wasn’t there yet.

“Local planners and zoners are still in control,” he said.

Controversial water pipeline part of Democrats’ opposition

Lee was even more damning. She focused on the sale of federal land in Utah that was also part of Amodei’s amendment in a collaboration with Utah Rep. Celeste Maloy.

“I have been alerted by water officials in Nevada and Arizona that the public land that Amodei wants to sell off in Utah could be used for a controversial water pipeline,” Lee testified. “The parcels of landmark for sale on this proposal coincidentally line up with the land in Utah that has been targeted for the so-called Lake Powell pipeline.”

This proposed pipeline is a big concern for water managers in Nevada, Arizona, California, Colorado, New Mexico and Wyoming that depend on the Colorado River, she said.

“If this land is sold and the pipeline is built, this could siphon 28 billion gallons of water each year from Lake Powell and the Colorado River to communities in southern Utah, away from Nevada, Arizona and other basin states,” Lee said.

Amodei “clearly doesn’t understand the relationship between water and development and housing costs. … I’m asking you to advance my amendment to repeal the Amodei land sale in Utah, so we can stop this trojan horse to steal Nevada’s water.”

Amodei said diverting water isn’t as simple as making a land sale.

It requires negotiations through the Colorado River Compact, signed in 1922, which involves seven U.S. states and Mexico.

“As a guy who served on the Colorado River Commission, I find that an utterly confusing statement,” he said of Lee’s claims.

Amodei’s response to Titus and Lee criticism

Asked if Titus and Lee’s actions create any lasting animosity, Amodei said no.

“I’ve worked with Dina in the state Legislature,” he said, “and Dina is still one of my favorites. It might upset her that I say that. But anyhow, that stuff’s all fine.”

But that’s not to say he agrees with what they said.

“I get the drama,” Amodei said. “It makes nice copy, but its resemblance to the truth is nonexistent.”

The future of Nevada lands bills

It may not have been wise to tank the Utah portion of his amendment because doing so went against the wishes of Utah Sen. Mike Lee, Amodei said.

Lee heads the Senate Natural Resources Committee.

“That’s kind of a curious guy to punch in the face when Jacky Rosen and Catherine Cortez Masto have a Southern Nevada lands bill that’s introduced over there and it’s going to go through that committee,” Amodei said of Nevada’s two Democratic senators.

Especially with Rosen and Cortez Masto being in the minority party, now their attempts to get lands bills approved — including Rosen’s for Washoe County — may face an even steeper climb.

But Amodei is optimistic for his own lands bill efforts in Northern Nevada that would include conservation and tribal components that weren’t allowed as part of the current budget bill process.

“We’ve got new credibility in terms of the teamwork department and are looking forward to hearings in the House Natural Resources Committee, which we expect — as a result of all this — to be on an expedited basis,” he said.

Mark Robison is the state politics reporter for the Reno Gazette Journal, with occasional forays into other topics. Email comments to mrobison@rgj.com or comment on Mark’s Greater Reno Facebook page.