Efforts are growing in the West to block the Bureau of Land Management’s new public land policy aimed at enhancing the conservation and ecological health of public lands.

The WEST (Western Economic Security Today) Act, which passed in the U.S. House of Representatives last week, is the latest attempt by Western states to repeal the policy aimed at enhancing the conservation and ecological health of public lands, which critics say harms economic activities including ranching, mining, fossil fuel production and energy development.

Rep. John Curtis, a Republican from Utah, introduced the bill, which would withdraw the rule that was finalized in May. The bill passed the House with a 212-202 vote. Three Democrats—Henry Cuellar of Texas, Jared Golden of Maine and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez of Washington—joined Republicans in voting for the bill. Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania was the lone Republican to vote against it.

The BLM’s “Conservation and Landscape Health” rule would allow for conservation leases, similar to how the agency leases land for mineral extraction, energy development, recreation or grazing. The rule would enable state and local governments, conservation groups and nonprofits to lease degraded public rangelands for up to 10 years to restore them. It also permits energy developers and mining companies to use these leases to mitigate the environmental impacts of their projects elsewhere.

Rep. Curtis and other Utah Republicans argue the rule would allow groups to permanently hold land, negatively impacting traditional uses like grazing or commercial guiding.

“The rule the BLM recently finalized undermines the very people who rely on our federal lands for ranching, grazing, recreation, and beyond,” Curtis said in a statement on July 16 after the bill passed. “Utahns know the true value of these lands and they should remain open to everyone. Instead, this rule favors wealthy individuals and environmental groups, allowing them to lock up land that belongs to all Utahns.” 

Environmental groups, however, heavily support the conservation rule and are frustrated by the moves to block the rule.

“It’s very simple: This attack aims to keep the dice loaded in favor of special interests like oil and coal companies, whereas the BLM public lands rule seeks the balanced approach prescribed by Congress for the agency almost 50 years ago,” the Wilderness Society wrote in a press statement immediately after the bill was passed. 

On July 12, a lawsuit filed in Wyoming by a coalition of various industrial groups also challenged the new rule. 

According to court documents, the groups allege the rule violates federal statutes governing BLM management by prioritizing conservation values over land uses that produce profits, potentially transforming public lands from “productive use” to “non-use.”

The lawsuit challenges the legality of BLM’s updated approach to managing public lands, contending that the new rule conflicts with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, which directs BLM to prioritize economic activities like grazing and mining. 

“It’s very simple: This attack aims to keep the dice loaded in favor of special interests like oil and coal companies…”

In a press release, Mark Eisele, president of the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association and a plaintiff in the lawsuit, stated the Bureau of Land Management is mandated under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) to balance multiple uses of public lands, including livestock grazing, energy development, mining, timber harvesting and recreation.

“The new rule disrupts this multiple-use system by introducing a new federal land use without Congressional approval and in conflict with existing federal law,” Eisele said. 

The lawsuit was filed by 12 groups, including the American Exploration & Mining Association; American Petroleum Institute; American Sheep Industry Association; National Cattlemen’s Beef Association; National Mining Association; and the Public Lands Council, a ranching industry trade group.

The group also criticized the BLM for approving the rule without conducting an Environmental Assessment or preparing an Environmental Impact Statement, which they believe are necessary to properly assess the rule’s impact on other activities on public lands.

The lawsuit contends that such exclusion of a key assessment procedure is “arbitrary and capricious,” potentially leading to highly controversial environmental effects or unresolved conflicts over resource uses.

BLM has declined to comment on the issue, citing the pending litigation. 

The rule exacerbates an already dysfunctional system, Nick Smith, public affairs director for the American Forest Resource Council, told Inside Climate News. He claims that the rule further restricts access to forest resources, hindering efforts to thin overstocked forests, reduce wildfire risks and combat tree diseases, while also limiting public access and recreation.

“From the forest sector’s standpoint where BLM manages a significant amount of forests, it simply serves to add red tape and additional costs to a federal land management system that we think is broken,” Smith said. 

Last June, another lawsuit jointly filed by the states of Wyoming and Utah against the BLM and the Department of the Interior challenged the rule, accusing the BLM of violating the National Environmental Policy Act, which requires federal agencies to assess the environmental effects of their proposed actions before making decisions, which the BLM did not do in this case.

In an email response to ICN, Michael Carroll, director of BLM campaigns for The Wilderness Society, said the lawsuits are “shortsighted” and the organization will explore all options to defend what he said is a vital and long-overdue measure from any attacks.

“These lawsuits do nothing to help Western states brave the very real threats already affecting their public lands, including the climate crisis,” said Caroll. “Nearly half a century ago, Congress mandated that the BLM consider the natural and scientific values of land, along with the needs of future generations, in its management decisions. The public lands rule will help the agency finally fulfill its ‘balanced multiple use’ mandate.”