Western states and Alaska are taking aim at the Biden administration’s proposed public lands rule, arguing it violates federal law and comes at the expense of energy, mining, and agricultural interests in their states.
The Bureau of Land Management’s Public Lands Rule, which was announced in late March, would allow the agency to lease federal lands for conservation purposes under its existing “multiple-use” framework, essentially giving conservationists and other environmental groups who are opposed to new fossil fuel development the same right to bid on federal leases as oil companies, miners, and cattle ranchers.
FIVE SUPREME COURT CASES TO WATCH WHEN JUSTICES RETURN FROM SUMMER RECESS
This would change an existing law created by Congress in 1976 to govern federal land use, and some critics have argued that it could also be used to stifle new resource development, such as oil drilling and mining activity.
In addition to the fierce backlash it has sparked among industry group leaders, states have also joined the chorus of opposition. In new letters sent to the Interior Department on Wednesday, various Western states, including Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Utah, as well as Alaska, each argued the proposed rule exceeds BLM’s statutory authority and threatens substantial harm to their respective economies.
As one letter noted, federal land comprises “significant portions of many states” in the West, including 63% of lands in Idaho, 30% in Montana, 65% in Utah, and 60% in Alaska, all of which are rich with minerals, oil and gas resources, timber, wildlife, and other land resources that are crucial to their economies.
In writing the 1976 law governing BLM’s public land management, Congress specified that the agency should make lands available for mining operations, motorized recreation, natural gas leases, guide concessions, hunting and fishing, scientific study, and more. By allowing conservation to be considered on an equal playing field, the many people, businesses, and industries that depend on public lands for their livelihood would suffer, the states argued.
Implementation of the rule would stifle agriculture industries in particular, states argued, which is a key source of revenue in the West. As Idaho noted in a letter to BLM Director Tracy Stone-Manning, the state is home to more cattle than people, almost half of who spend their lives on public land.
“Eliminating public land grazing would exacerbate the country’s ever-increasing need for food, and decreased sustainable forage would exponentially increase the need for water-intensive crops in an alarming drought emergency,” Idaho Attorney General Raul Labrador wrote.
Importantly, the states argue that the rule would also stifle domestic mineral production at a time when the United States has sought to incentivize EV battery production and manufacturing, most recently through the Inflation Reduction Act and “Made in America” tax incentives aimed at battery manufacturing and critical minerals mining.
As the U.S. Geological Survey notes, Idaho is a key producer of cobalt, antimony, zinc, and thorium, and Alaska leads the nation in zinc and gold production. Montana is the only U.S. producer of palladium and platinum, and Utah is the only producer of beryllium.
These are crucial resources that not only benefit the U.S. economy, they argue, but are also necessary to deliver on its critical minerals and clean energy production goals.
In addition, states have argued that the administration has no authority to adopt or implement the proposed rule, which they said violates the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976.
Under FLPMA, public lands are required to be managed based on “multiple uses and sustained yield.” But the opposing states argued that conservation is not a use under that designation. In fact, they said, it is a “non-use.”
“[We] recognize that responsible multi-use of these lands is essential to the economic and social health of society,” Alaska Attorney General Treg Taylor said in a separate letter addressed to Interior Secretary Deb Haaland.
The administration, for its part, has argued conservation leasing is a critical tool that will help balance the impacts of development and facilitate the restoration of public lands, which have seen new strain from drought, wildfires, and extreme heat conditions in recent years.
“As pressure on our public lands continues to grow, the proposed Public Lands Rule provides a path for the BLM to better focus on the health of the landscape, ensuring that our decisions leave our public lands as good or better off than we found them," Stone-Manning said in a statement.
“Our public lands provide so many benefits – clean water, wildlife habitat, food, energy and lifetime memories, to name just a few– and it’s our job to ensure the same for future generations,” she added.
Since Congress did not authorize the Interior Department or BLM to act as a de facto conservation lessor in FLPMA, opponents say the administration would be violating its authority by trying to push the conservation policy through via a proposed rule.
“Make no mistake, the proposed Conservation and Landscape Health rule twists the language FLPMA to undermine a variety of vital uses,” Taylor said, adding that the proposal is “an audacious assertion of power by BLM that it does not possess, and Congress did not authorize.”
The rule has sparked intense controversy, and more than 170,000 industry groups and other voices ultimately weighed in during BLM’s mandatory public comment period, which ended on Wednesday.
If finalized, the public lands rule is almost certain to be challenged in court, including by industry groups, which could delay its implementation.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
Among the industry groups who urged against the rule are the American Exploration and Mining Association, or AMEA, which said it “fundamentally violates FLPMA in multiple ways,” as well as the Nevada Farm Bureau Federation, the Montana Electric Cooperatives’ Association, and the South Dakota Cattlemen’s Association, who filed separate letters detailing their opposition.
"In light of the numerous legal infirmities and substantial policy concerns for implementation, IPANM respectfully requests that BLM withdraw and reconsider the proposed Planning Rule," said Jim Winchester, the executive director of the Independent Petroleum Association of New Mexico.