Several industry groups are challenging a new rule from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) that puts conservation on equal footing with other uses on agency-managed lands.
Traditionally, companies have sought leases for various uses on BLM’s 245 million acres, including mining, logging, grazing, oil and gas drilling and recreation. Now, under the new Public Lands Rule which went into effect in June, parties can also apply for leases to do “restoration” or “mitigation” work.
A dozen agriculture, mining, oil and gas organizations filed a lawsuit this month to overturn the BLM’s rule, arguing it undermines traditional uses.
“Our concern is this rule will make it much more difficult for our members to access those lands that they have historically used for ranching and grazing, and that it will also make it more expensive for them to do so,” said Travis Cushman, the deputy general counsel at the American Farm Bureau Federation.
However, BLM contends that the rule does not exclude other uses or rights already in place. The agency said that the rule will allow it to manage the land, increasingly threatened by degradation, fragmentation and climate change, for future generations.
One of the main arguments in the lawsuit, filed in Wyoming, is that the rule violates the 1976 Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), which mandates that BLM manage lands for “multiple-use” and “sustained yield.” Conservation, according to Cushman, should be ineligible for BLM leases under FLPMA.
“BLM is supposed to manage lands for productive, multiple-use, not for 'non-use,’” he said.
The lawsuit also refers to this summer’s U.S. Supreme Court decision that overturned the Chevron doctrine, which limits a federal agency’s power unless it is clearly defined by Congress.
But Chris Winter, who directs an environmental law center at the University of Colorado Boulder, believes in creating the Public Lands Rule, the BLM acted squarely within the statute of the 1976 law enacted by Congress.
“It was saying, 'Protect natural resources over the long term’, and within that charge, we're giving BLM discretion on how to do that,” he said.
Still, Winter said this will be an important case to follow because it's the first one applying the decision that overturned Chevron to a significant public lands issue.
Cushman, on the other hand, said the lawsuit does not ride on the Supreme Court decision, and that his team still would have made the argument that BLM overstepped its authority based on other precedents. He pointed to a 1999 federal appeals court decision, which held that grazing permits could not be given out exclusively for conservation purposes.
Separately, Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, Wyoming and Utah have also filed challenges to the Public Lands Rule.
This story was produced by the Mountain West News Bureau, a collaboration between Wyoming Public Media, Nevada Public Radio (KNPR) in Las Vegas, Boise State Public Radio in Idaho, KUNR in Nevada, KUNC in Colorado and KANW in New Mexico, with support from affiliate stations across the region. Funding for the Mountain West News Bureau is provided in part by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
