Landscape outside of Monroe, Utah with the Paiute ATV trail winding through a valley. (Photo by harpazo_hope via Getty Images)
The state of Utah sent shockwaves through the world of environmental policy last Tuesday when it announced a lawsuit challenging federal ownership of 18.5 million acres of land within its borders.
I’ve long argued in favor of state-led management and multiple use, but I worry the state is relying too heavily on a legal victory. Those of us aligned with the state should not lose sight of pushing public lands reform in Congress.
When it comes to public lands, things have changed dramatically since Utah became a state in 1896. At that time, the Department of the Treasury was disposing of federal lands through the General Land Office (GLO) , developing as much land as possible. The Homestead Act was still in place, encouraging individuals to settle on and acquire public lands. The federal government had recently given away millions of acres to railroad companies, and Congress welcomed livestock grazing on all sorts of terrain.
Since then, the United States has shifted toward a program of conservation and transformed the GLO into the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The BLM does not usually sell land but instead has a mission to manage them indefinitely in the public interest under a policy of “multiple use.” The objective isn’t to “lock up” the land but to conserve its resources forever, so our great-great-grandchildren can hunt the same forests and run cattle in the same pastures.
Many environmental groups aren’t satisfied with that mission, and their influence in the federal government is growing. Preservationism — the practice of permanently removing productive land from use — is trending.
Both preservationism and multiple-use management have their downsides, but preservationism is the more “nuclear option.” It excludes traditional land uses such as agriculture , and it hinders conservation activities such as forestry , hunting , and habitat restoration . It prevents energy projects, including clean energy . Left unchecked, it threatens our energy security, our rural farmers, our ability to prevent catastrophic wildfires — even our ability to address climate change.
Democratic presidents have allowed preservationist organizations to grow their influence through administrative rules and monument designations. This has resulted in national monuments on over 3 million acres in southern Utah and another million along the Arizona strip. It has also resulted in the BLM’s new Public Lands Rule , which allows environmental groups to restore land currently leased for agriculture and mineral extraction. The state’s lawsuit is a counteroffensive in the ongoing effort to push back against these policies.
My concern is less about this lawsuit and more about the wider conflict. The state’s proactivity preparing for the lawsuit to succeed is impressive. But are we prepared to lose?
If the Supreme Court refuses to hear this lawsuit or rules in favor of the federal government, the BLM will still control 34% of Utah’s land, and environmentalists will push ever harder to restrict recreation, grazing, and mineral development. The president will continue to have unfettered authority to create National Monuments, and — based on my conversations with friends working on policy in other states — very few people outside the West will care.
The most productive course of action would be for nongovernmental entities aligned with the state’s values to lobby for reforms to public lands at a federal level. There needs to be a robust public relations effort as well. Congress is, by design, inefficient at making major changes, but it is the only way to ensure that reforms are not easily undone by an incoming president, as was the case in 2021 when President Joe Biden reinstated Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monuments.
We have the right players to move public land reform through Congress. The late Sen. Orrin Hatch was successful both at securing resources for public lands and protecting them from federal overreach, and we will likely soon have Rep. John Curtis as Hatch’s successor in the Senate. Curtis has shown an uncanny ability to build relationships with members of Congress from other states and from across the aisle. He is also no stranger to public lands issues, having worked out a deal on public lands in Emery County, among other projects.
Regardless of the outcome of this lawsuit, there are opportunities to protect multiple use and make public land management more collaborative. But we will need to look beyond the borders of our state and party, build relationships, and play the game at a new level.
Most Popular
Comments / 0