Latest news with #FederalLandPolicyandManagementAct
Yahoo
18-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump moves to rescind public lands conservation rule
In another action drawing harsh outcry from environmental groups, President Donald Trump's Department of Interior is moving to rescind the BLM's Public Lands Rule that set conservation on the same footing with other forms of use on federal public land. Others lauded the move. 'We are thrilled the Trump Administration has decided to reexamine the Biden-era Public Lands Rule. This rule could keep Utahns off public lands and would employ a museum-type management approach — you can look, but you can't touch," Utah Attorney General Derek Brown said in a statement. 'All Utahns should have access to Utah public lands under a policy that allows for multiple uses. The Trump administration has a better understanding of Utah's unique public lands challenges and we look forward to working with them to increase access to Utah's public lands.' The policy, implemented during the Biden administration, sought to put conservation and ecosystem restoration as part of multiple use on Bureau of Land management land like drilling and grazing. New leases would have been offered improving and recovering federal lands and offsetting development impacts. The action was swiftly condemned by Utah and other Western states. 'Utah has a long track record of successful conservation and restoration of its public lands in tandem with local BLM offices,' Utah Gov. Spencer Cox said in a statement after a draft of the rule was released in 2024. 'The added layers of red tape and federal bureaucracy embedded in the BLM's Public Lands Rule create new roadblocks to conservation work. The health of Utah's lands and wildlife will suffer as a result. This rule is contrary to the bedrock principle of 'multiple-use' in the BLM's governing law, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act. I look forward to working with Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes and his office to challenge this rule in federal court as soon as possible.' In the letter of concern before the rule's adoption, Cox and the other governors wrote: 'The proposed rule would then require the BLM to identify intact landscapes on public lands, and manage these lands to protect them 'from activities that would permanently or significantly disrupt, impair, or degrade the structure or functionality of intact landscapes.' While the specific activities that would harm these intact landscapes are not identified in the proposed rule, we are concerned that different forms of multiple use such as conifer removal projects, livestock grazing, renewable energy development, mining, oil and gas exploration, road improvements, dispersed camping, and many other activities could be deemed to 'disrupt, impair, or degrade' in different situations.' It went on to stress this: 'In fact, it is conceivable that almost all of the West's BLM land could qualify as 'intact landscapes' under the BLM's vague and overly broad definition.' Prior to his election to the U.S. Senate, then Utah Rep. John Curtis proposed legislation to nullify the rule and industry groups were readying for a legal battle. This year, Rep. Celeste Maloy, R-Utah, and Rep. Russ Fulcher, R-Idaho, reintroduced the Western Economic Security Today, or WEST, Act that would require the national director of the BLM to withdraw the rule. The White House Office of Management and Budget posted a rescission notice for the rule this week, following an executive order Trump issued directing federal agencies to determine and invoke regulations that undermine national interests. The Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance says the rescission of the rule flies in the face of public opinion, pointing out that 92% of the comments the Bureau of Land Management received during a public comment period on the rule were positive. '(Interior) Secretary Doug Burgum routinely trashes the very concept of conservation of public lands — likening them to a corporate balance sheet to be monetized, applauding as President Trump fired thousands of employees at BLM and the National Park Service, and now this: undoing the wildly popular Public Lands Rule. The Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance opposes these efforts and will work to keep the Public Lands Rule in place,' said Steve Bloch, legal director for the organization.
Yahoo
21-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Opinion - Building homes on federal land could lower costs — if cities are held in check
The Departments of the Interior and Housing and Urban Development are exploring making some federal land available for homebuilding to alleviate a stubborn housing shortage estimated at over 20 million homes. Their success will depend not only on how quickly and broadly the plan is implemented, but on making sure any newly opened land is not bogged down by the local land use regulations that make housing so scarce and expensive in the first place. The current home shortage is primarily due to excessively restrictive local land-use rules that favor relatively expensive homes on large lots. But particularly in western states, land for homebuilding is limited by federal holdings near fast-growing metropolitan areas like Las Vegas, Phoenix and many others. Western land was opened to large-scale settlement through 1862's Homestead Act, which resulted in the sale of more than 420,000 square miles — around 11 percent of the country — in blocks of up to 160 acres, typically to small farmers. As quality agricultural land grew scarce, claims plummeted and nearly dried up by the 1930s. In 1946, the Bureau of Land Management was formed, reflecting a shift from sales toward maintaining land that had not attracted buyers. In 1976, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act repealed the Homestead Act, signaling an embrace of federal ownership and management, growing environmental concern and other changing currents in public opinion. But in the following years, something else changed: The rapid growth of sunbelt cities made valuable land once thought worthless. But selling federal land had become complex and politically fraught under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, and western cities began to chafe against confinement. By the 1990s, the situation had become too pressing to ignore. The Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act authorized the Bureau of Land Management to transfer certain land to address a housing shortage in Las Vegas. Its success has been mixed, with around 40 percent of the designated land still unsold. Land that has been sold has been subject to municipal zoning, which typically imposes restrictions such as minimum lot sizes, frontage requirements, setbacks and other mandates that hinder builders from constructing low-cost houses. Today, western states such as Nevada, Arizona, Utah, Idaho, California and Oregon have some of the highest home price-to-income ratios in the nation. Hemmed in by federal land and burdened by their own expensive regulations, cities that should be centers of opportunity for a new generation are instead starter-home deserts. New houses are prohibitively expensive for too many buyers. The new initiative promises to revisit the Federal Land Policy and Management Act's assumptions in a comprehensive way that encompasses all affected municipalities. Done right, it could cut through burdensome procedural barriers to selling federal land, relieve cost pressures on western urban markets, allow new cities to grow in appropriate locations and remain attentive to environmental and conservation concerns. But the number of resulting homes that most Americans can comfortably afford will be closely tied to local land use regulations. In Reno, Nevada, I found that new homes on lots smaller than 5,000 square feet appraised at an average of $343,000, while those on 5,000-to-7,000-foot lots were appraised at $461,000. Yet less than 10 percent of the single-family lots in Reno — and zero percent of the area of one major development district — allows homes on less than 5,000 square feet of land. Frontage requirements also played a role in Reno. Each additional 10 mandated feet corresponded with an extra $60,000 in home costs. So, unless the Bureau of Land Management and HUD push back against local policies like these by attaching robust, enforceable conditions to transfers or negotiating ironclad development standards that ensure that starter homes are legal to build, expect to see some nice, spacious — and expensive — homes built. Local politics almost inevitably lead to zoning that would blunt the affordability impact of land sales. Beyond cost, there are environmental benefits to allowing smaller homes, including both single-family homes on small lots and multifamily housing. Higher-density housing makes more efficient use of urban land, reducing the rate of outward sprawl. Small lots in arid western climates also mean fewer large, irrigated yards sapping water supplies. And while the benefits for American families could be immense, the amount of land required relative to total federal acreage is modest. The homesteading farmer sought 160 acres or more, but today's starter homes can sit on one-tenth of an acre or less. Mountains of evidence show the exclusionary, cost-raising effect of overzealous local zoning. Federal authorities have an opportunity to do more than open land to Americans seeking a home to call their own. They can show our cities and counties what happens when inclusive policies allow for starter homes in addition to houses only the wealthy can afford. Charles Gardner is a research fellow with the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
21-03-2025
- Business
- The Hill
Building homes on federal land could lower costs — if cities are held in check
The Departments of the Interior and Housing and Urban Development are exploring making some federal land available for homebuilding to alleviate a stubborn housing shortage estimated at over 20 million homes. Their success will depend not only on how quickly and broadly the plan is implemented, but on making sure any newly opened land is not bogged down by the local land use regulations that make housing so scarce and expensive in the first place. The current home shortage is primarily due to excessively restrictive local land-use rules that favor relatively expensive homes on large lots. But particularly in western states, land for homebuilding is limited by federal holdings near fast-growing metropolitan areas like Las Vegas, Phoenix and many others. Western land was opened to large-scale settlement through 1862's Homestead Act, which resulted in the sale of more than 420,000 square miles — around 11 percent of the country — in blocks of up to 160 acres, typically to small farmers. As quality agricultural land grew scarce, claims plummeted and nearly dried up by the 1930s. In 1946, the Bureau of Land Management was formed, reflecting a shift from sales toward maintaining land that had not attracted buyers. In 1976, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act repealed the Homestead Act, signaling an embrace of federal ownership and management, growing environmental concern and other changing currents in public opinion. But in the following years, something else changed: The rapid growth of sunbelt cities made valuable land once thought worthless. But selling federal land had become complex and politically fraught under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, and western cities began to chafe against confinement. By the 1990s, the situation had become too pressing to ignore. The Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act authorized the Bureau of Land Management to transfer certain land to address a housing shortage in Las Vegas. Its success has been mixed, with around 40 percent of the designated land still unsold. Land that has been sold has been subject to municipal zoning, which typically imposes restrictions such as minimum lot sizes, frontage requirements, setbacks and other mandates that hinder builders from constructing low-cost houses. Today, western states such as Nevada, Arizona, Utah, Idaho, California and Oregon have some of the highest home price-to-income ratios in the nation. Hemmed in by federal land and burdened by their own expensive regulations, cities that should be centers of opportunity for a new generation are instead starter-home deserts. New houses are prohibitively expensive for too many buyers. The new initiative promises to revisit the Federal Land Policy and Management Act's assumptions in a comprehensive way that encompasses all affected municipalities. Done right, it could cut through burdensome procedural barriers to selling federal land, relieve cost pressures on western urban markets, allow new cities to grow in appropriate locations and remain attentive to environmental and conservation concerns. But the number of resulting homes that most Americans can comfortably afford will be closely tied to local land use regulations. In Reno, Nevada, I found that new homes on lots smaller than 5,000 square feet appraised at an average of $343,000, while those on 5,000-to-7,000-foot lots were appraised at $461,000. Yet less than 10 percent of the single-family lots in Reno — and zero percent of the area of one major development district — allows homes on less than 5,000 square feet of land. Frontage requirements also played a role in Reno. Each additional 10 mandated feet corresponded with an extra $60,000 in home costs. So, unless the Bureau of Land Management and HUD push back against local policies like these by attaching robust, enforceable conditions to transfers or negotiating ironclad development standards that ensure that starter homes are legal to build, expect to see some nice, spacious — and expensive — homes built. Local politics almost inevitably lead to zoning that would blunt the affordability impact of land sales. Beyond cost, there are environmental benefits to allowing smaller homes, including both single-family homes on small lots and multifamily housing. Higher-density housing makes more efficient use of urban land, reducing the rate of outward sprawl. Small lots in arid western climates also mean fewer large, irrigated yards sapping water supplies. And while the benefits for American families could be immense, the amount of land required relative to total federal acreage is modest. The homesteading farmer sought 160 acres or more, but today's starter homes can sit on one-tenth of an acre or less. Mountains of evidence show the exclusionary, cost-raising effect of overzealous local zoning. Federal authorities have an opportunity to do more than open land to Americans seeking a home to call their own. They can show our cities and counties what happens when inclusive policies allow for starter homes in addition to houses only the wealthy can afford.
Yahoo
06-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Environmentalists sue after feds allows new drilling permits in one of the country's most polluted areas
A slew of health and environmental groups are suing the Bureau of Land Management over its approval of permits for new oil and gas drilling on Central California's public lands - which is home to some of the country's most polluted cities. A complaint filed in the U.S. Eastern District Court of California claims that the federal agency's decision is at the expense of public health, the environment and the law. It adds that the bureau had never analyzed the harms of its good approvals on nearby communities. 'The law requires the BLM to look at big-picture pollution impacts when it approves a bunch of new drilling permits in the same oil fields on the same day,' Michelle Ghafar, an attorney at Earthjustice, said in a statement announcing the move. 'These wells don't exist in a vacuum, and neither do the people who are forced to endure years of polluted air that makes them and their families sick.' The bureau told The Independent on Wednesday that it does not comment on pending litigation. The groups lambasted the bureau's actions, saying that they had unlawfully divided the collective harm that nearly 30 more wells would do to the San Joaquin Valley, obscuring the larger harms of the approvals in 'one of the most pulled areas of the country.' The San Joaquin Valley is home to large productions of oil, warehouse distribution and agriculture. The area is home to the cities of Stockton, Fresno and Bakersfield. 'Most of the new wells will be drilled near homes and residential areas, in direct violation of California's new oil and gas setbacks law that prohibits drilling within 3,200 feet of sensitive locations to protect public health,' they alleged. 'The Bureau of Land Management also rubberstamped its approvals without allowing public comment, in violation of federal law.' The suit accuses the bureau of violating the National Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Air Act, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the Mineral Leasing Act. It notes that the San Joaquin Valley air basin's Kern County exceeds safe thresholds for ozone and particulate matter on nearly a third of all days in the year, and that the American Lung Association found cities there to be among the most polluted in the nation. One in six children in the San Joaquin Valley has asthma — the highest level in California, according to Fresno's Community Care Health. The negative health impacts there disproportionately impact low-income residents and minorities, officials say. Of the more than 914,000 Kern County residents, nearly 80 percent of those living near wells are people of color and low-income residents. In the past, wells there leaked the greenhouse gas methane at explosive levels, according to the Palm Springs Desert Sun. Residents in Bakersfield reported negative health impacts from the elevated levels. When gas leaks or is burned from wells, cancer-causing compounds and other gases are released that can be harmful to the lungs, and form smog that causes respiratory and cardiovascular distress, the American Lung Association explains. Drilling oil and gas can leak methane and other toxins that impact the valley's air, water and soil, said Jasmine Vazin, deputy director of Sierra Club's Beyond Dirty Fuels Campaign. 'The San Joaquin Valley deserves better — the BLM needs to follow the law and put residents first,' she said.
The Independent
06-02-2025
- Politics
- The Independent
Environmentalists sue after feds allows new drilling permits in one of the country's most polluted areas
A slew of health and environmental groups are suing the Bureau of Land Management over its approval of permits for new oil and gas drilling on Central California's public lands - which is home to some of the country's most polluted cities. A complaint filed in the U.S. Eastern District Court of California claims that the federal agency's decision is at the expense of public health, the environment and the law. It adds that the bureau had never analyzed the harms of its good approvals on nearby communities. 'The law requires the BLM to look at big-picture pollution impacts when it approves a bunch of new drilling permits in the same oil fields on the same day,' Michelle Ghafar, an attorney at Earthjustice, said in a statement announcing the move. 'These wells don't exist in a vacuum, and neither do the people who are forced to endure years of polluted air that makes them and their families sick.' The bureau told The Independent on Wednesday that it does not comment on pending litigation. The groups lambasted the bureau's actions, saying that they had unlawfully divided the collective harm that nearly 30 more wells would do to the San Joaquin Valley, obscuring the larger harms of the approvals in 'one of the most pulled areas of the country.' The San Joaquin Valley is home to large productions of oil, warehouse distribution and agriculture. The area is home to the cities of Stockton, Fresno and Bakersfield. 'Most of the new wells will be drilled near homes and residential areas, in direct violation of California's new oil and gas setbacks law that prohibits drilling within 3,200 feet of sensitive locations to protect public health,' they alleged. 'The Bureau of Land Management also rubberstamped its approvals without allowing public comment, in violation of federal law.' The suit accuses the bureau of violating the National Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Air Act, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the Mineral Leasing Act. It notes that the San Joaquin Valley air basin's Kern County exceeds safe thresholds for ozone and particulate matter on nearly a third of all days in the year, and that the American Lung Association found cities there to be among the most polluted in the nation. One in six children in the San Joaquin Valley has asthma — the highest level in California, according to Fresno's Community Care Health. The negative health impacts there disproportionately impact low-income residents and minorities, officials say. Of the more than 914,000 Kern County residents, nearly 80 percent of those living near wells are people of color and low-income residents. In the past, wells there leaked the greenhouse gas methane at explosive levels, according to the Palm Springs Desert Sun. Residents in Bakersfield reported negative health impacts from the elevated levels. When gas leaks or is burned from wells, cancer-causing compounds and other gases are released that can be harmful to the lungs, and form smog that causes respiratory and cardiovascular distress, the American Lung Association explains. Drilling oil and gas can leak methane and other toxins that impact the valley's air, water and soil, said Jasmine Vazin, deputy director of Sierra Club's Beyond Dirty Fuels Campaign. 'The San Joaquin Valley deserves better — the BLM needs to follow the law and put residents first,' she said.
