 - U.S. Sens. John Barrasso and Cynthia Lummis, R-Wyo., were among a group of 12 U.S. Senators who sent a letter to the U.S. Department of the Interior this week supporting the proposed repeal of the 2023 Conservation and Landscape Health Rule - otherwise known as the Public Lands Rule.){kind=link}
(Washington, D.C.) – U.S. Sens. John Barrasso and Cynthia Lummis, R-Wyo., were among a group of 12 U.S. Senators who sent a letter to the U.S. Department of the Interior this week supporting the proposed repeal of the 2023 Conservation and Landscape Health Rule – otherwise known as the Public Lands Rule.
In their letter, the 12 senators said the Rule represented “a glaring example of federal overreach by the Biden administration” and is “destroying the livelihoods of rural communities, ranchers, energy producers, and land users across the American West.”
In particular, the letter says the Rule “elevated ‘conservation’ to a standalone use of Federal lands – placing it on par with, and in practice above, traditional productive uses such as grazing, mineral development, timber harvest, and recreation.”
“That is not just legally dubious – it is devastating for the West,” the letter states. “Since the 2023 Public Lands Rule took effect, we’ve heard from county commissioners, ranchers, energy developers, mining operators, and local businesses who are faced with regulatory ambiguity, exclusionary leases, and a chilling effect that discourages new investment.”
In the letter, the senators argue that, although the Biden rule “frames ‘conservation leasing’ as a tool for habitat protection, in reality it creates a framework where well-funded environmental NGOs and ESG-aligned businesses can gain quasi-exclusive control over Federal lands, often to the detriment of traditional users.”
“Rather than enabling collaboration with those closest to the land, the Rule promotes a model of passive exclusion, where land is removed from productive use in the name of ‘conservation,’ without the necessary resources or coordination to ensure real stewardship,” the letter states, pointing to “another glaring issue” with the Public Lands Rule: “its lack of meaningful consultation with states, counties, tribal governments, and local stakeholders,” who “were treated as spectators in this rulemaking.”
“Federal lands must remain productive and accessible, not locked away behind layers of bureaucratic control,” the letter concludes. “The 2023 Conservation and Landscape Health Rule threatened that future by favoring ideology over stewardship, process over partnership, and exclusion over access. The BLM’s proposed rollback is a step in the right direction.”
Wyoming’s entire federal delegation, which includes Barrasso, Lummis, and U.S. Rep. Harriet Hageman, R-Wyo., already issued a press release last month applauding the proposal to rescind the Public Lands Rule.
But local advocacy organizations like the Wyoming Outdoor Council and Wyoming Wildlife Federation – both headquartered in Lander – disagree that rolling back the Rule would be beneficial.
“This Rule formalizes conservation as a multiple use on our BLM lands alongside other uses such as energy development,” WOC Public Lands Program Manager Gabby Yates explained in an Instagram post last month. “(It) is an incredibly valuable tool for improving the health of our public lands. … Rescinding the rule would be a major setback for conservation.”
Later, in an email to County 10, Yates pointed out that 98 percent of comments submitted in response to the proposed rescission opposed repealing the Rule – “a testament to the public’s desire to see conservation on equal footing with other uses like energy development.”
“Listing conservation as a valid multiple use through the Public Lands Rule is long overdue and critical for upholding conservation on our nation’s public lands,” Yates said. “It would be disheartening to see the loss of this rule that included many steps forward toward improving the health of our BLM lands, including restoration leasing, which has great potential for building partnerships to work on restoration projects without interrupting existing rights. In a state like Wyoming where one-third of our land is managed by the BLM, that could have an incredible positive impact on the health of our state’s landscapes.”
WWF Policy Director Nat Paterson said the Public Lands Rule aims to keep Wyoming’s public lands “healthy and productive so future generations can enjoy (the) freedom to roam.”
“Wyoming’s public lands are part of who we are — the places where we hunt, fish, work the land, and experience the freedom that defines the Wyoming way of life,” Paterson said in an email to County 10. “While we respectfully disagree with our congressional delegation’s efforts to repeal the rule, we share their love of Wyoming and their commitment to keeping these lands open, working, and wild — for wildlife, for people, and for the generations riding in behind us.”
The public comment period for the proposed rescission closed Nov. 10.