Wyoming Republican U.S. Rep. Harriet Hageman took to the House floor Wednesday to advocate for Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolutions that would overturn three Bureau of Land Management resource management plans, arguing the Biden-era policies amount to "mineral withdrawals in disguise" that restrict energy development across millions of acres.
She focused her remarks on the Miles City Resource Management Plan amendment in Montana, which when combined with Wyoming's Buffalo RMP amendment, would end future coal leasing across the Powder River Basin — an area containing roughly 30% of the nation's coal reserves.
However, the novel use of the Congressional Review Act to challenge land management plans has drawn significant opposition from legal scholars and environmental groups that warn the action could destabilize decades of federal land management policy.
Julia Stuble, Wyoming state director of The Wilderness Society, cautioned that "if these resolutions pass the House, it will be an unprecedented step that could end up throwing our public lands into chaos.
"It will effectively undo decades' worth of local input and planning, and leave thousands of permits, leases, and rights of way vulnerable to lawsuits."
The Stakes
Hageman outlined the economic implications of the plans under consideration, stating that "the Miles City Plan strips away access to 37.8 billion short tons of coal, which is enough to meet U.S. demand for the next 73 years."
She cited consequences including higher energy costs, the loss of $46 million annually in Montana state revenue for public education, and the elimination of high-paying jobs in rural communities.
"These Biden-era plans lacked balanced resource management and in fact are mineral withdrawals in disguise which runs contrary to federal law," Hageman told House members. "They lock up America's resources, kill jobs, and undermine energy security."
Understanding RMPs
Resource management plans (RMPs) serve as comprehensive blueprints for Bureau of Land Management activities, determining where energy development, grazing, recreation and conservation can occur across federal lands.
Once approved, these documents establish the law of the land — binding requirements for both the agency and public land users.
Changing restrictive federal land use policies has been a longstanding priority for Wyoming leaders across all levels of government, who argue such plans hamper the state's energy-dependent economy.
The current Congressional approach has generated debate over whether land management plans should be subject to Congressional Review Act procedures.
Industry Support
The American Exploration and Production Council, representing major energy companies, has backed the congressional action through a detailed letter to the Interior Department arguing that restrictive resource management plans impede energy development.
The organization specifically criticized Wyoming's Rock Springs RMP, stating it "significantly restricts oil and gas activities on nearly a third" of its 3.6 million acres and "impermissibly interfere[s] with the rights of current lessees."
There has been ongoing tensions between federal land managers and state officials over resource management plans, including February when federal officials promised they would "listen to Wyoming this time" about the Rock Springs plan, and in July when Montana followed Wyoming's lead in challenging Biden-era coal lease restrictions.
Legal Concerns
Hageman’s approach faces substantial opposition from legal experts who argue it could create widespread unintended consequences.
More than 30 law professors from institutions like Georgetown, UC-Berkeley and University of Colorado sent a letter dated Tuesday to congressional leadership, also warning the action could "throw public lands into chaos."
The legal scholars note that neither Congress nor federal agencies have historically treated land use plans as "rules" requiring congressional approval under the Congressional Review Act since the law's passage in 1996.
They point out that the BLM has finalized 123 land use plans since then, none submitted to Congress, while the Forest Service maintains 176 active land use plans that could be affected if Congress establishes this precedent.
The professors argue that disapproving resource management plans could jeopardize "any permits, authorizations, contracts, rights of way, or licenses issued pursuant to an unsubmitted plan," potentially affecting existing energy projects, grazing permits, and other federal land uses.
Wyoming's Perspective
Hageman drew on Wyoming's experience with federal land management disputes.
"Wyoming knows this fight all too well where the Buffalo field office was hit with the same environmentalist-driven lawsuits and agency overreach with bureaucrats pushing no leasing alternatives that amount to nothing more than backdoor energy bans,” she said.
She expressed frustration with what she characterized as federal energy policies, saying: "To this day, I am still baffled and horrified that for four years our government intentionally tried to impose energy poverty on the American people. All to please the vocal but minority climate lobby."
Environmental Opposition
The Wilderness Society argued in a July press release that the Congressional action "could totally upend the management of public lands in the U.S." and "affect hundreds of decisions across millions of acres for each RMP."
Environmental groups contend that resource management plans incorporate years of scientific analysis, public input, and stakeholder consultation designed to balance multiple land uses while protecting natural resources for future generations.
Energy Security?
Hageman concluded her remarks by connecting energy development to national security concerns.
"When the Powder River Basin turns off, so does America,” she said. "Energy security is national security. The Biden administration's RMPA undermines both. By restricting access to our own resources, it pushes America towards greater dependence on foreign nations, including our adversaries."
The House could vote on the resolutions as early as Wednesday night, with similar measures pending in the Senate. The outcome will likely influence how Congress approaches federal land management policy and the scope of Congressional Review Act applications in the future, according to those tracking the measure.
For Wyoming, the debate reflects broader questions about federal versus state authority over public lands and the balance between energy development and environmental protection on millions of acres of federal property.
It also raises questions about whether using the CRA as Hageman is proposing will accelerate energy production, or as the law professors warned in their letter, “paralyze public land management nationwide."
David Madison can be reached at david@cowboystatedaily.com.
