Proposal on federal land conservation hits choppy House waters

WASHINGTON (CN) — Accusing the Biden administration of ignoring the needs of rural Americans, House Republicans ramped up their challenge Thursday against a plan by the Biden administration to improve conservation efforts on public lands by shaking up federal land management regulations.

GOP lawmakers have sponsored legislation to do away with the rule that the Bureau of Land Management’s propose in April. If finalized, the rulemaking would update the Federal Land Policy and Management Act to include conservation as an approved use of public land under a land management practice known as multiple use.

In managing the nearly 250 million acres of federal land under its jurisdiction, the BLM abides by the principle of multiple use as laid out in the FLPMA, short for the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976.

The law defines multiple use as a land-management practice that combines different types of activity — such as recreation, logging, mining or agriculture — to extract as much productivity as possible out of public land. It allows the bureau to lease parcels of public land for multiple use practices, which also include oil and gas extraction.

Officials at BLM say their proposed rule would simply add conservation to the list of approved land use activities, and that it would provide leases for such efforts.

Although the agency contends that the rule is aimed at putting conservation on equal footing with other multiple use activities and would not prioritize it over other land uses, Republicans have argued that the regulation is overly vague and threatens rural economies that rely on public land leasing.

“Under the guide of conservation, this rule would only further this administration’s radical preservationist agenda,” Arkansas Congressman Bruce Westerman said during a Thursday hearing in the House Committee on Natural Resources. “The BLM’s proposed conservation rule is anything but.”

Westerman, who chairs the natural resources panel, complained that the proposed regulation does not explicitly define what would be considered conservation work under new multiple use guidelines. The Arkansas Republican also expressed concern that the conservation leasing process could affect some commercial access to public lands, despite the agency’s assurances to the contrary.

Utah Republican John Curtis, sponsor of the bill rolling back the conservation rule, argued that Western states where the majority of federal lands are located are already effective environmental stewards without what he framed as meddling from Washington.

“This rule undermines the work of real conservationists, like farmers and ranchers, who have kept the land in good health,” Curtis argued. “Poor management of these lands will increase the likelihood of fires, and it will increase our food shortages and energy shortages. The repeal of this designation is critical to proper management of these lands.”

In addition to forcing the bureau to roll back its conservation rule, Curtis’ proposed measure would also block the agency from finalizing or enforcing any similar rule in the future.

Wyoming Governor Mark Gordon, invited to testify at Thursday’s hearing, added his perspective that the proposed BLM rule would sidestep states’ power to manage issues such as wildlife management and affect their existing relationships with the agency’s field offices.

“State agencies excel in the management of fish and wildlife species,” Gordon said. “Yet, this rule seeks to circumvent state authority, and doing so will throw a monkey wrench into collaborative conservation work that our citizens and state agencies do already with BLM offices.”

Gordon, alongside South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem, also expressed frustration at what they said was a lack of engagement with the Interior Department and rural states while drafting the proposed conservation rule.

“It is interesting that no one thought to have a field hearing anywhere near my state,” Gordon said, “and as a result, that testimony is lost on BLM.”

The agency in late May and early June held listening sessions on the proposed rule in Denver, Reno and Albuquerque, and hosted two virtual seminars.

Committee Democrats meanwhile said action to bring conservation up to par with other uses of public land was long overdue.

“There’s no question that conservation must be part of that multiple use equation,” said Arizona Congressman Raúl Grijalva, ranking member of the natural resources committee. “Unfortunately, however, conservation has historically taken a backseat to all other uses, including mining, oil and gas extraction and even grazing.”

Grijalva’s fellow Grand Canyon State Democrat, Representative Ruben Gallego, took aim at his Republican colleagues for what he said was an effort to undermine government agency authority.

“The proposed rule does not change BLM’s existing land management planning process, it just adds to it,” Gallego contended. “But this bill would potentially limit future rulemaking.”

As Republicans work to walk back the proposed conservation rule, Democrats this week urged the Biden administration to swiftly finalize it. In a Monday letter to Secretary of the Interior Deb Haaland, a coalition of congressional Democrats heaped praise on the effort, calling it an important step toward protecting federal lands against the effects of climate change.

“Lands managed by the BLM are often overlooked in conversations about addressing the biodiversity and climate crises, but their contributions are crucial,” the lawmakers wrote. “Sustainable and resilient public lands are critical to Western economies and great quality of life.”

The BLM is accepting public comments on the proposed rule until June 20.

Follow @BenjaminSWeiss