The Biden administration has proposed a new regulation that would restrict the use of federal land for traditional purposes like energy development, and it is facing strong opposition from various stakeholders. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) introduced these regulations in March, allowing environmental organizations opposed to fossil fuel projects to lease land for conservation purposes, effectively blocking resource development. The BLM has received over 170,000 comments during the extended public comment period.
Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen criticized the proposal, stating that it violates the Federal Land Policy and Management Act. He argued that the BLM is trying to redefine the meaning of land use to include conservation, which is not supported by federal law. Knudsen believes that the proposal should go through legislation rather than being implemented through BLM regulations. He also suggested that the proposal may violate the Administrative Procedure Act, which requires federal agencies to provide reasonable justification for their regulations.
Knudsen joined other state attorneys general in opposing the proposal, stating that it would harm the energy, mining, agriculture, and cattle industries while violating the Federal Land Policy and Management Act. Under this law, the BLM is required to allow various uses of the lands it manages, including energy development, grazing, recreation, and mining.
The BLM’s proposal aims to prioritize conservation and improve the resilience of public lands in the face of climate change. The agency argues that this will help protect wildlife habitats, landscapes, and cultural and natural resources. According to the proposed rule, organizations would be able to bid on land for specific restoration or mitigation activities.
However, Knudsen argues that the term “conservation” is not defined in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, and therefore it should not be considered an approved use of federal land. He believes that if conservation is a priority, it should be addressed through Congress and legislation, rather than through BLM regulations.
In addition to attorneys general, industry groups such as the National Mining Association, American Exploration & Mining Association, cattlemen’s associations, farmers’ groups, and oil industry organizations have also expressed concerns about the proposal. They believe it represents a significant shift in BLM’s management of federal lands and violates the Federal Land Policy and Management Act.
These stakeholders argue that the proposal should be withdrawn because it was developed without adequate stakeholder involvement or awareness. They believe that the BLM should consult with producers who will be affected by the rule, as they are the original conservationists.
Overall, there is widespread opposition to the Biden administration’s proposal to restrict traditional uses of federal land. Critics argue that the proposal is in violation of federal law and should go through the legislative process rather than being implemented through BLM regulations. They believe that the proposal would harm industries such as energy, mining, agriculture, and cattle, while ignoring the multiple-use mandate established by Congress.
Denial of responsibility! VigourTimes is an automatic aggregator of Global media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, and all materials to their authors. For any complaint, please reach us at – [email protected]. We will take necessary action within 24 hours.
