The federal government denies that its new policy withdrawing federal grazing, mining and other lands from public use is unlawful, and insists that a handful of Wyoming farmers and other industry groups are not entitled to relief from the rule.
The Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation, Natrona County Farm and Ranch Bureau and several Western and national agriculture and energy groups first sued the U.S. Department of the Interior and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in July, claiming the BLM’s new “conservation” rule for withdrawing federal lands is unlawful and unfair.
On Friday, the federal agencies responded with a blanket denial, saying the groups have no standing to sue, haven’t been hurt by the new rule and haven’t shown that it’s illegal.
“Defendants deny that (the groups) have stated a valid claim for relief or that Plaintiffs are entitled to any relief whatsoever,” wrote U.S. Department of Justice attorneys in a brief on the agencies’ behalf.
The Concern
The United States manages 640 million acres of land across the nation, comprising nearly 30% of the land mass.
The Federal Land Policy Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) and other laws empower the BLM to place reasonable conditions on the productive use of federal lands, from mining to livestock grazing, from energy development to building electric power lines.
Congress also has enacted laws providing for conservation — not use — of federal lands, such as the Parks and Public Lands Management act of 1996.
“Congress has carefully guarded its authority to set aside public lands,” says the industry groups’ lawsuit complaint, originally filed in the U.S. District Court for Wyoming and transferred this month to the U.S. District Court for Utah. “Only in the narrowest of circumstances constrained by strict procedural guardrails has it authorized BLM itself to set aside federally managed lands covered by FLPMA for non-use.”
Now This Rule
But under the BLM’s new Conservation and Landscape Health Rule, the agency has built two new categories of lease: one for land mitigation and one for restoration.
The farmers and other groups call this a misleading turn of phrase, saying these leases don’t give way to actually using the land, but land-hoarding for conservation, and that goes against FLPMA’s purpose.
“The Rule’s seismic change in land-use policy goes unacknowledged and unexplained,” says the complaint. “Although the Rule sharply departs from nearly 50 years of settled practice and policy, BLM repeatedly describes the Rule as merely ‘clarifying’ that conservation is a land-use on par with FLPMA’s principal or major uses.”
This case is ongoing.
Clair McFarland can be reached at clair@cowboystatedaily.com.
