On June 15, the House Committee on Natural Resources held a hearing on legislation to withdraw the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) proposed rule that will fundamentally upend the agency's longstanding multiple use mandate. Chairman Bruce Westerman (R-Ark.) released the following statement in response:

"Across the American West, access to BLM land is a crucial part of local economies and daily life. This proposed rule by BLM is just another example of the Biden administration's misguided attempts to lock up our public resources in a futile pursuit of their radical preservationist agenda. Time and time again, D.C. bureaucrats have left local communities out of the conversations about public lands, and they did it again with this proposed rule. Today's hearing is a crucial chance for these men and women to make themselves heard. I'd like to thank Governors Noem and Gordon for testifying today and highlighting just how disastrous this proposed rule would be for their constituents and thousands of other communities across the West."

Background

The BLM manages 244 million acres of public lands that are heavily concentrated in the western states. Under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, BLM's mission is guided by the multiple use and sustained yield mandate. These uses include livestock grazing, energy and mineral development, timber production, recreation, habitat for wildlife and watershed protection. 

Often these uses overlap on BLM land and co-exist with each other. Meaningful conservation work continues to occur simultaneously with, and often to the benefit of, these other uses. Responsible uses of BLM lands are central to the western way of life. Many rural economies rely on and thrive due to their access to BLM land and its multiple uses. 

However, the recent rule proposed by the BLM would fundamentally alter and disrupt the multiple use mandate. Many committee members are concerned about the lack of local input on the proposed rule, and today was an important opportunity for members to hear from elected officials and energy stakeholders in the West and further understand the potentially disastrous effects of the proposed rule. 

Specifically, members discussed H.R. 3397, which amplifies the concern expressed by stakeholders across the West and would require the BLM director to withdraw this vague and misguided rule. 

To learn more, click here. 

Original source can be found here