U.S. Rep. John Curtis, R-UT, is leading an effort to block a proposed rule that would change how Bureau of Land Management maintains America’s land.
During a U.S. House Committee on Natural Resources hearing last week, Curtis spoke against a proposed BLM rule that would allow conservation to be considered a use of the land, creating “conservation leases” that would go alongside established uses of BLM land like grazing, mining and timber harvesting.
If the rule takes effect, conservation groups would be able to buy leases from BLM land to restore it, as it would not interfere with other existing leases, like with grazing or mining.
If passed, Curtis’ bill, HR3397, would call on BLM to withdraw the rule. The other three members of Utah’s U.S. House Delegation have signed on as co-sponsors. The bill would also prevent BLM from implementing a similar rule in the future.
In a hearing that lasted much of last Thursday morning, Curtis and other House members grilled Nada Wolff Culver, BLM’s principal deputy director, and others over the change. The committee also called South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem and Wyoming Gov. Mark Gordon, both Republicans, to testify, with both voicing their support of Curtis’ bill.
The Biden administration supports the rule change, while GOP officials have voiced their opposition.
During his opening remarks, Curtis said he believes the proposed rule is an instance of East Coast bureaucrats telling Western states how best to manage open lands.
“I would like to go on the record of saying that in the West, we know far better how to manage these lands, and have done better for decades and decades, than any bureaucrat in the East Coast could ever imagine,” Curtis said.
Curtis also used the Bears Ears National Monument as an example of an area he believes is better managed by Utah as opposed to the federal government.
“For decades and decades and decades, the good people of Utah have managed these lands in a responsible way, far better ... than since the Bears Ears Monument designation,” Curtis said. “Nothing good has come out of that designation for the land in Utah, for the local tribes and for the people who participate in this land.”
In previous statements and during the hearing, GOP members of Congress said implementing the rule would mean restricting access to public lands. In a news release last month, Curtis said the rule, “would undermine the livelihoods of Utah’s farmers, ranchers, recreation businesses, and more.” In the same news release, Curtis said, “this rule attempts to lock up those precious lands that should be open and accessible to the public.”
Noem, Gordon and House committee members said they believe the rule would hurt ranchers who depend on BLM land for grazing.
Following the hearing, U.S. Rep. Melanie Stansbury, D-N.M., who spoke during the hearing, said during a news conference that she disagrees with the notion that a conservation lease would block access to public lands.
“It is not intended to disturb other purposes,” Stansbury said of the proposed change. “It’s a tool to enable leasing activities on BLM lands to improve conservation activities as part of restoring intact landscapes ... the rule is not designed to try to take ranchers and their livestock off of our public lands.”
The language of the proposed rule says a new conservation lease, “would not override valid existing rights or preclude other, subsequent authorizations so long as those subsequent authorizations are compatible with the conservation use.”
At least one Utah group expressed their disappointment with Curtis’ stance on the proposed rule change — the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, a nonprofit that focuses on preserving Utah’s deserts and redrock wilderness. The group’s legal director, Steve Bloch, issued a statement last week in support of the proposed change.
“The proposed Public Lands Rule would be good for the land, wildlife, and people who rely on it. It sets forth a framework that will make public lands more resilient to the impacts of a rapidly changing climate and puts conservation on par with extractive uses that have long taken precedence,” Bloch said in the written statement.
He also expressed his disagreement in Curtis’ comments, adding, “Rep. Curtis’s partisan comments at today’s hearing were disappointing, misguided, and divisive; BLM manages public lands — including those in Utah that would directly benefit from this rule — on behalf of all Americans.”
It is not immediately clear when HR3397 could move to a vote on the House floor.
