Estimated read time: 2-3 minutes
SALT LAKE CITY — Several Utah representatives introduced legislation last week to withdraw a proposed rule from the Bureau of Land Management that the agency says would promote conservation through the protection and restoration of certain landscapes, but that opponents say would stop state-level management of public lands and block land from important uses.
Reps. John Curtis, Celeste Maloy, Blake Moore and Burgess Owens and nine other members of Congress's Western Caucus sponsored legislation to withdraw the rule, alleging it would limit access to public lands. The rule, titled "Conservation and Landscape Health," was introduced in March and purportedly "lays groundwork for conserving wildlife habitat, restoring places impacted by wildfire and drought, expanding outdoor recreation, and thoughtful development," according to an Interior Department press release.
Gov. Spencer Cox and several other governors have said they plan to sue the federal government over the new rule.
The sponsors of last week's legislation said the Bureau of Land Management's rule would have a disproportionate effect on Western states and citizens, as more than 90% of the 245 million acres controlled by the bureau are located in the West.
Curtis spoke about the bill on the House floor, pointing to Utah's rural communities and how they "work hard to feed our families, protect American energy, and lead in manufacturing."
"We should be making it easier for them," he continued. "Instead, the Biden administration is pushing this rule to allow environmental groups funded by Swiss billionaires who pretend to be representing Utah to lock up public lands. This is completely backwards."
Curtis said the new rule favors "wealthy individuals and environmental groups, allowing them to lock up land that belongs to all Utahns. I am pleased that the House voted in a bipartisan manner to pass my bill revoking its implementation."
The rule proposes a number of regulations under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, including allowing environmental groups to lease land to close it off to other uses.
"The proposal is consistent with strategies used by other state and federal land management agencies to ensure the federal government has tools and direction to identify areas in need of restoration or conservation, as well as the ability to encourage investments in public lands to help balance the impacts of development," an Interior Department press release states.
Although the release also claimed the rule would "increase access to outdoor education by putting conservation on equal footing with other uses," the Western Caucus sponsors claimed it would actually limit recreational opportunities, as well as hinder access for energy and mineral development, grazing and forest management.
"In the West, we know locking up lands with preservationist designations does not automatically guarantee healthy landscapes. In fact, the opposite is often the case," said Western Caucus chairman Dan Newhouse. "Farmers and ranchers are the best stewards of the land, not bureaucrats in Washington who seek to hamper our land managers' ability to conserve the land they rely on for their livelihoods."
