A Biden administration proposal that would lock up federal land and block traditional uses of public land like energy development is facing stiff opposition from a wide range of stakeholders.
In March, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) unveiled federal regulations that would allow environmental organizations that are opposed to fossil fuel drilling and mining projects to lease land for conservation uses, thereby blocking resource development. [emphasis, links added]
The agency extended its public comment period for the rule until Wednesday and has received more than 170,000 comments.
“What you’ve got now is BLM trying to shove through another overarching, sweeping rule that’s not supported by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act,” Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen told Fox News Digital in an interview.
“They’re trying to argue that conservation now somehow fits within the definition of uses under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and trying to do it by rule.”
“It’s just flagrantly in violation of federal law. But they’re trying to do it on the sly,” he continued. “They can’t get done what they want done in Congress and through the Senate, so they try to do it via rule.”
Knudsen added that the proposal represents a broad policy change that should come through legislation, not BLM regulations.
He suggested the proposal is also in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, a 1946 law that requires federal agencies to provide sufficient reasoning for the regulations they implement.
Knudsen joined letters led by other state attorneys general in opposition to the proposal.
The comment letters from him and the other top law enforcement officials stated the BLM action would substantially harm the energy, mining, agriculture, and cattle industries while violating the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976.
Under FLPMA, Congress established BLM’s so-called “multiple-use” and sustained yield mandate. The statute requires the BLM to open the lands it manages to various uses including energy development, grazing, recreation, and mining.
The BLM action seeks to put conservation “on equal footing” with other uses, and the agency said it would improve the climate change resilience of public lands, conserve wildlife habitats and landscapes and preserve cultural and natural resources on public lands.
Under the rule, organizations would be allowed to bid on land to conduct specific restoration or mitigation activities.
“Uses are all defined in FLPMA. Nowhere in there does the term conservation — conservation is basically non-use,” Knudsen said.
“So what this would amount to is locking up swathes of federal land for ‘conservation.’ That’s not an approved use under the law. If you want to do that, fine. Go to Congress, pass the bill, get the president to sign it. But they know they don’t have the juice to do that.”
In addition to Knudsen and several other attorneys general, various industry groups have also weighed in and opposed the proposal during its comment period.
For example, mining groups National Mining Association (NMA) and American Exploration & Mining Association (AEMA), local cattlemen’s associations, farmers’ groups, and oil industry organizations submitted comments expressing concern about the rule.
“In our view, the proposal represents a fundamental shift in the way BLM currently manages federal lands under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act’s (FLPMA) multiple-use mandate,” NMA counsel Katie Mills wrote to the BLM.
“The potential impacts on NMA’s members that conduct mining operations or other activities on federal lands are significant.”
“The Proposed Rule is illegal and should be withdrawn immediately. While the Proposed Rule pays lip service to [FLPMA] as amended, it fundamentally violates FLPMA in multiple ways, including illegally adding ‘conservation’ as a ‘use’ when Congress did not include it in FLPMA’s specific list of uses,” AEMA Executive Director Mark Compton wrote in a separate letter.
The Nevada Farm Bureau Federation said the rule should be withdrawn and expressed concern about its potential impact on small businesses including ranchers who depend on public lands.
Read rest at Fox News
One more example why the Chevron precedent needs to be overturned. Something like this belongs in Congress where our duly elected representatives can decide whether the use of federal lands should be changed like this. But they know it would never pass so the unelected officials at BLM will try to shove this down our throats.
Bidem the Worse doing like all Globalists want as his polls continue to tank and he heads for a total Crash and Burn