On August 20, 2024, Utah filed a lawsuit against the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), asking the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) to rule on the constitutionality of the federal government indefinitely holding unappropriated lands within a state. The suit comes after Utah leaders claim there has been “decades of legal analysis.”
Federal land management agencies currently control more than 70 percent of Utah’s land, with approximately half currently appropriated, or designated by the United States Congress as wilderness areas, tribal lands, military use or national forests, parks, or monuments. Appropriated lands will not be affected by the lawsuit. The 18.5 million acres that remain in question account for 34 percent of Utah land, and are currently controlled by the BLM, yet have no specific, Congressionally identified use.
BLM is actively closing trails and restricting access to some of the most popular “public” lands in the state. For example, in September 2023 BLM announced closure of 317 miles of roads and trails near Moab to motorized travel. For all practical purposes, this decision resulted in the closure of nearly 120 camping sites. Despite protests and appeals from numerous outdoor enthusiast groups and the state, a federal judge ruled the roads would remain closed indefinitely.
Thousands of additional miles of roads and trails are also being targeted for closure. The BLM cited what has become an environmental extremist mantra for justifying land use limitations, stating the closures are necessary to conserve wildlife habitats, promote vegetation growth, and protect cultural sites.
An 1866 law known as R.S. 2477 allows Utah to build roads on federally managed lands for public use, and in 2012 Utah sued the Department of the Interior and BLM to settle the title question and adjudicate use of those roads. The case has been held up in court for the past dozen years, amounting to a middle finger salute to the state and citizens who ultimately own the federal land. This feels like yet another egregious overreach by our federal government.
Utah countered, claiming the roads are necessary to access state trust lands that generate revenue for public schools. BLM ignored the state’s requests to keep the roads open.
Utah Rep. Phil Lyman and gubernatorial candidate recently said on X, formerly known as twitter:
“I oppose the radical environmentalist agenda to lock up our lands and shut down our historic roads, and we need to be doing everything we can as a state to oppose oppressive federal overreach.”
Utah maintains that continued federal ownership of unappropriated land deprives the state of rights, resources, opportunities and the ability to properly manage natural resources. The state cannot police, tax or build infrastructure on federally managed lands. Utah has also experienced BLM dereliction of its responsibilities regarding resource management, one example being the BLM’s failure to effectively control wildfires.
Utah House Speaker Mike Schultz said:
“Even if you believe that Washington bureaucrats should manage land from 2,000 miles away, you simply have to admit they have not done a very good job. The federal government consistently demonstrates their incompetence in properly managing our land.”
“It is obvious to all of us that the federal government has increasingly failed to keep our lands accessible and properly managed,” Utah Governor Spencer Cox said in a press conference. Cox was also critical of BLM’s livestock grazing policies, which he stated “are destroying the livelihoods of our farmers and ranchers who preserve these lands…People who have no idea, no tie to the land, no tie to the history, no tie to our state, are making these decisions that are causing real harm.”
BLM’s New Public Land Rule Created to Destroy Productivity
In May 2024, in lockstep alignment with the globalist agenda to centralize federal ownership and control of land, BLM implemented a new Public Lands Rule that effectively makes nonuse, cleverly labeled “conservation,” of lands an official “use.” Perhaps only a federal agency of the U.S. government could reinvent the definition of nonuse as a “use.” The intent is to eliminate the productive use of BLM-managed lands, even though these lands produce a significant amount of natural resources the nation relies on, including food and fuel. The rule defies BLM’s own founding principles. The agency’s website states its mission is to “sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations.” Actions BLM is taking prevent “we the people” from access to lands ultimately owned by “we the people.”
The Federal Lands Management and Policy Act (FLPMA) of 1976 mandates that BLM lands be managed for “sustained yield,” which has been defined as “the achievement and maintenance in perpetuity of a high-level annual or regular periodic output of the various renewable resources of the public lands consistent with multiple use.” BLM is defying its own reason for being!
Redge Johnson is the Utah Public Lands Policy Coordinating Office Executive Director. Johnson says that if the state prevails in the lawsuit, it would manage former BLM lands to retain their productivity, including grazing, mining, energy development and recreation, via Utah’s Department of Land Management. However, it’s important to understand state management of the lands would not exclude conservation measures, but would instead take a truly balanced approach, unlike the BLM approach of denying public access to public lands.
Governor Cox stated:
“The BLM has increasingly failed to keep these lands accessible and appears to be pursuing a course of active closure and restriction. It is time for all Utahns to stand for our land.”
Utah Control of Land Would Eliminate Environmental Extremists’ Revenue
Predictably, there has been an outcry about the lawsuit from environmental extremist groups that outwardly complain landscapes won’t be protected and sensitive species would be at risk, and Utah would sell land to “greedy developers.” The most beautiful, diverse, and culturally significant lands in Utah are already preserved in various ways. As Utah media personality, Lincoln Brown wrote: “There are parts of Utah that are breathtaking, places in this state that stand as testimony to the artistic hand of God. By contrast, some places are about as picturesque as the average litter box and could be put to good use.”
The environmental extremist outcry is most likely because the removal of federal control over land would eliminate a major source of revenue for activist groups: the “sue and settle” racket. Environmental extremist groups routinely sue land management agencies over proposed projects or changes in land use, often claiming proper environmental impact statements haven’t been completed. When the cases go to court, land management agencies typically offer to settle, resulting in the project in question being halted or delayed, with environmental extremist groups receiving federal taxpayer-funded settlements in the process.
Ironically, while environmental extremist groups make loud rants about the use of federally managed land for livestock grazing, mining, and petroleum extraction, there has been relatively little complaint about the installation of so-called green energy infrastructure on those lands, including questionably “renewable” wind and solar energy projects.
Utah Victory Would Be a Multi-Faceted Win
If the Supreme Court rules in Utah’s favor, it would be a major victory for states’ rights, national food and energy security, and set an important precedent in the fight against environmental extremists, federal government overreach, and globalists’ desires.
Utah Attorney General, Sean D. Reyes, said:
“The Framers of the (U.S.) Constitution carefully limited federal power to hold land within states. Current federal land policy violates state sovereignty and offends the original and most fundamental notions of federalism.”
Our land’s natural resources, both renewable and nonrenewable, are vital to our security and prosperity. Throughout the West, federally managed lands accommodate thousands of leases for gas, oil, coal, renewable energy, minerals, and helium. BLM oversees grazing on 155 million acres, with around 18,000 permits where livestock sustainably use non-arable lands to produce food for humans, preserve the natural environment, and promote biodiversity. About 40 percent of the nation’s beef cattle spend time on public lands, as do 50 percent of the nation’s sheep herds.
The United States has been called “the land of plenty.” If successful, Utah’s lawsuit against the BLM will be a vital step in maintaining that claim. Protect The Harvest promotes and defends A Free and Fed America™.
Related information links:
Utah Stand For Our Land HERE
How new Public Lands Rule would hurt Utah HERE
About ranching in the West HERE
About 30 X 30 land grab HERE
More about 30 X 30 HERE
About BLM’s mission to limit land use HERE
About not so “green” energy HERE
