What is the new BLM Rule and why is it Bad?

BLM tried to rewrite its own mission in 2023 by inventing a new internal rule called the Conservation and Landscape Health Rule.

This new rule changes the BLM mission that was created and defined by Congress in 1976 in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, or FLPMA.

The new BLM rule changes the FLPMA Law, and it creates new Law.

Specifically, the new rule changes the meaning of "land use" defined by FLPMA: it expands the FLPMA definition to include "conservation."
And it creates new Law by creating a new BLM authority to offer "conservation leases."

Whether "conservation leases" are a good idea is irrelevant.
What matters is that government agencies do not create or change law, or rewrite their own missions.
If an agency wants to change its mission, the new mission will be created and defined by elected representatives in Congress, not by a handful of unaccountable employees working at the agency.

FLPMA requires BLM to manage public lands on a Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield basis: MUSY. 

Multiple-use means ... meet the present and future needs of the people; ... use some land for less than all resources; ... balanced uses that take into account long-term needs of future generations; ... recreation, range, timber, minerals, watershed, wildlife and fish, and natural scenic, scientific and historical values... etc. 

Sustained-yield means conservation: ...maintain perpetual output of renewable resources consistent with multiple use.

FLPMA is a good law. It balances land use with conservation.

FLPMA does not limit conservation. It gives BLM full discretion to conduct conservation programs everywhere. Federal case law says the MUSY directive "breathes discretion at every pore."Perkins v. Bergland, 608 F.2d 803 (9th Cir. 1979)

BLM does not need a new rule in order to achieve conservation objectives. FLPMA already gives BLM all the discretion and flexibility it needs to pursue and achieve balanced conservation goals. 

Seven reasons why the new BLM Rule is bad:

1. It changes Law, which is a usurpation of Legislative power.
2. It creates Law, also a usurpation of Legislative power.
3. It creates new "conservation leases" that can and will restrict access to public land. 
4. It has no limits on the size of conservation leases.
5. It places no limits on conservation leaseholders' ability to restrict access to public land. 
6. Leaseholder corporations would not be accountable to the people in the same way that government is accountable. 
7. The new rule is unnecessary. FLPMA already requires BLM to conduct conservation programs. 

If BLM staff are unable to use FLPMA flexibility to achieve conservation objectives, BLM doesn't need a new rule, it needs new management.

---