THE 30 x 30 PROBLEM
We have experienced more loss of our freedoms and increasing governmental control in every facet of our lives that it is difficult to not be wary of every newly proposed policy that is being pushed our way. Let’s look at new set of regulations that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has proposed which would change priorities of the BLM to conservation issues of more importance than multiple uses that has been authorized by Congress.
This is another example of establishing rules that contradict present federal laws. The Biden administration has promoted this testing of Constitutional law in so many cases you have to believe that they do not care about the opinion of the people as represented by their legislators. Time and time again they test to see how far they can go in overriding established federal law.
This is another example of establishing rules that contradict present federal laws. The Biden administration has promoted this testing of Constitutional law in so many cases you have to believe that they do not care about the opinion of the people as represented by their legislators. Time and time again they test to see how far they can go in overriding established federal law.
This new rule is based on Biden’s plan of conserving (government acquisition of) 30% of U.S. lands and oceans by 2030 which he established by executive order the first week in office. Their purpose is to control or eliminate existing rights and productive uses on lands already owned by the federal government, while encumbering the private property within these areas.
The agency justifies this bold power play with this reasoning: “Ensuring resilient ecosystems has become imperative, as public lands are increasingly degraded and fragmented due to adverse impacts from climate change and a significant increase in authorized use.” However, a 2017 report from the Congressional Research Service on livestock grazing, shows that fifty percent of domestic livestock use has been eliminated from the federal lands under the Bureau’s management. That is not an increase in use as they claim, but a staggering decrease. Since the Biden Administration was installed, the authorized multiple uses of grazing, mining, timber, oil and gas have further declined. |
While the agency claims the land is “increasingly degraded and fragmented,” and in need of “restoration and protection,” it is worth noting this has occurred during BLM’s 50 plus years of management and arguably as a result of BLM’s failed policies. Their solution, of course, is more of the same — assume more power, further restrict access, and eliminate productive uses of these lands.
The BLM argues the proposed rule will have an insignificant economic impact. Yet, they plan to issue conservation leases to replace the current productive uses such as grazing, mineral and energy development, hunting, and recreation. These industries provide the local economy with the revenue they need to support the local infrastructure, fund schools and hospitals and send search and rescue to help tourists who get lost or injured in the rural areas.
The BLM argues the proposed rule will have an insignificant economic impact. Yet, they plan to issue conservation leases to replace the current productive uses such as grazing, mineral and energy development, hunting, and recreation. These industries provide the local economy with the revenue they need to support the local infrastructure, fund schools and hospitals and send search and rescue to help tourists who get lost or injured in the rural areas.
What this means in a practical sense is that well-heeled environmental activist groups that are accountable to no one could buy up huge tracts of land under the auspices of a “conservation lease,” and effectively place it under lock and key. That is entirely incompatible with the concept of management for “multiple uses.” As much as anything, this is a back door to designating more and more land as “wilderness,” and placing it off-limits to the public — all without going through the people’s elected representatives.
It is difficult to overstate how important the multiple use doctrine is to the economy, culture, and even to the environment of Colorado, particularly the Western Slope. Of the 24.1 million acres of land that the federal government owns in Colorado (about 36% of the state’s landmass), nearly all of that is in the western part of the state. In some Western Slope counties, as much as 90% of the land is federally owned. Nearly every industry and economic driver in the western part of the state is dependent on the use of public lands. |
Ranching is the top agricultural activity in the region, and Colorado ranchers and farmers have depended for generations on access to federal grazing leases to feed their herds during the summer. Locking out thousands of acres of public land from grazing, which this proposed rule could do, would put additional strain on small, family-owned ranches which are already dealing with drought and low prices for calves as well as concurrent high input costs for feed, veterinary care, and all the other things that go into feeding America and the world.
Coloradans are receiving notices that their home insurance rates are skyrocketing due to increased wildfire risks, and the BLM has a policy of not fighting fires until they move into private property. The BLM is proposing a rule that will make effective wildfire mitigation far more difficult to employ over potentially thousands of acres in Western Colorado.
In Colorado, there are few, if any, discussions as important as those around water. As climate change and downstream demands continue to stress our water supplies, proactive water management, including storage, will be more vital than ever. Yet, under this proposed rule, clearly any consideration of water storage projects will be off the table.
Coloradans are receiving notices that their home insurance rates are skyrocketing due to increased wildfire risks, and the BLM has a policy of not fighting fires until they move into private property. The BLM is proposing a rule that will make effective wildfire mitigation far more difficult to employ over potentially thousands of acres in Western Colorado.
In Colorado, there are few, if any, discussions as important as those around water. As climate change and downstream demands continue to stress our water supplies, proactive water management, including storage, will be more vital than ever. Yet, under this proposed rule, clearly any consideration of water storage projects will be off the table.
Obviously, this fight will come down to what the Biden administration feels is more important…conservationists or citizens of our state and their ability to raise cattle, sheep, farm, produce gas, mine for essential minerals or use the mountains for recreation. Kathleen Sgamma, president of the Western Energy Alliance said, “Environmentalists don’t care about eliminating greenhouse gases, they care about stopping oil and gas.” She then added, “And they know on federal lands, where there is so much process and protection, that they have more levers for mitigation. But when we stop getting our oil and gas from here, all that does is shift the greenhouse gas emissions to other parts of the country, or to different countries like Venezuela or Saudi Arabia.”
“Colorado’s economy, way of life and natural heritage depend on the concept of multiple use of public lands, and the BLM should uphold that principle, rather than overturn it.” said Donald Valdez who represented House District 62 as a Democratic member of the Colorado House of Representatives until January 2019. He operates a farm and ranch in La Jara. |
On July 19, 2023, Rep. Dan Newhouse’s (R-WA) amendment to prohibit funds from being used to finalize the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) proposed on “Landscape and Conservation Health” rule was adopted in the Interior and Environment Appropriations. Be aware that this is not the end. Biden and his “green policy people” will continue to try to take complete control of U.S. land, in fact they want 50% by 2050. Ownership of land is power. We can’t let the government, the wealthy or the conservationists take our land.