The Biden administration’s proposal to block federal land and block traditional uses of public lands, such as energy development, has faced fierce opposition from a wide range of stakeholders.
In March, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) announced federal regulations allowing environmental groups opposed to fossil fuel drilling and mining projects to lease land for conservation purposes, thereby discouraging resource exploitation. The agency extended the public comment period for the rule until Wednesday, with more than 170,000 comments.
In an interview with Fox News Digital, Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen said, “What BLM is getting now is pushing through another comprehensive and sweeping rule not supported by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act. It’s what we’re doing,” he said. “They are arguing that conservation now somehow fits the definition of use under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, and they are trying to do it under regulation.”
“This is clearly against federal law, but they are trying to do it in secret,” he continued. “They can’t get what they want through Congress and the Senate, so they’re trying to do it by the rules.”
Biden’s latest eco-rule slams small businesses, manufacturers: ‘Will hurt tremendously’
Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen said the Biden administration’s proposal “flatly violates federal law.” (Fox News Digital)
Knudsen added that the proposal represents a broader policy change to be implemented through legislation rather than BLM regulations. He suggested that the proposal also violated the Administrative Procedure Act, a 1946 law that requires federal agencies to provide sufficient justification for regulation to be implemented.
Knudsen joined other state attorney general-led letters opposing the proposal. Comment letters from him and other senior law enforcement officials said the BLM measures violated the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) and would cause substantial harm to the energy, mining, agricultural and livestock industries. rice field.
Under the FLPMA, Congress established so-called “multi-use” and sustained yield obligations for BLM. The law requires BLM to open up the land it manages for various uses such as energy development, grazing, recreation and mining.
Biden administration’s fraudulent internal analysis eases blow to power plant regulation: report
The BLM action aims to put conservation on an “equivalent footing” with other uses, and officials say it will improve the climate change resilience of public lands, protect wildlife habitats and landscapes, and protect public lands. It said it would protect the cultural and natural resources of the region. Under the rule organization would be allowed Bid on land to undertake specific remediation or mitigation activities.
“All uses are defined in FLPMA. There is no term for conservation anywhere. Conservation is essentially non-use,” Knudsen said. “In other words, this would block a portion of federal land for ‘conservation. “It’s not a legal use. I know there isn’t.”
Cows graze along the Missouri River in Fort Benton, Montana. Cattlemen’s groups have expressed concern over regulations that could prevent ecological groups from grazing cattle on public land. (AP Photo/Matthew Brown, File)
In addition to Knudsen and several other attorneys general, various industry groups also spoke out against the proposal during the comment period.
For example, mine group National Mining Association (NMA) The American Exploration and Mining Association (AEMA), local cattlemen’s associations, farmers’ groups, and oil industry groups have submitted comments expressing concerns about the rule.
White House Environment Council Conflicts Over Technologies Core to Biden’s Green Goals
“In our view, this proposal represents a fundamental change in how BLM currently manages federal land under the FLPMA’s multi-use mandate,” NMA Attorney Katie Mills said. said in a letter to BLM. “The potential impact on NMA members conducting mining operations and other activities on federal lands is significant.”
“The proposed rule is illegal and should be withdrawn immediately. While the proposed rule is lip service, [FLPMA] The amendment fundamentally violates the FLPMA in multiple ways, including illegally adding “conservation” as a “use” when Congress did not include it in the FLPMA’s list of specific uses. We are,” AEMA Executive Director Mark Compton wrote in a separate letter.
The Nevada Union of Agriculture Departments said the rule should be repealed and expressed concern about the potential impact on small businesses, including ranchers who rely on public land.
An oil pumpjack pictured in Tatum, New Mexico on March 30, 2022. (AP Photo/Cedar Attanasio, File)
The South Dakota Livestock Association similarly wrote that the BLM proposal was “developed without the involvement or knowledge of any stakeholder.” BLM argued that the rule should be withdrawn pending consultation with producers who would be affected by the rule, pointing out that the original conservationists were farmers and ranchers.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
Jim Winchester, Executive Director of the Independent Petroleum Institute of New Mexico (IPANM), said in a comment letter, “In view of numerous legal flaws and significant policy concerns over implementation, IPANM has withdrawn the proposed planning rule from BLM. I respectfully request that it be reconsidered.”
“BLM should refocus on promoting multiple uses of public lands within congressional mandates of FLPMA planning authority, ACEC designations, and wilderness withdrawals,” he continued. “As long as BLM continues to develop its rule, it must remove the Conservation Lease Allowance.”
In a separate letter, the Montana Power Cooperative Association, which represents the state’s major utilities, said the rule could ultimately hinder the development of power infrastructure and harm renewable energy sources.
