The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) introduced regulations in March that would allow environmental organizations opposed to fossil fuel drilling and mining projects to lease land for conservation purposes, effectively blocking resource development.
The BLM has extended the public comment period for the rule until Wednesday and has already received over 170,000 comments.
Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen criticized the proposal, stating that it goes against the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and is a violation of federal law.
WATCH: IF TRUMP GOES TO JAIL, STOCK MARKET WILL CRASH
Knudsen argued that such a broad policy change should be made through legislation, not BLM regulations.
He also suggested that the proposal may be in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, which requires federal agencies to provide sufficient reasoning for the regulations they implement.
WATCH: RFK EXPLAINS BILL GATES'S "PHILANTHROPY"
Knudsen joined other state attorneys general in opposing the proposal, stating that it would harm the energy, mining, agriculture, and cattle industries while violating the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976.
This act established the BLM's mandate for "multiple-use" and sustained yield, which requires the agency to open the lands it manages to various uses, including energy development, grazing, recreation, and mining.
PANDEMIC FALLOUT CONTINUES: SEATTLE PLANS DRASTIC SCHOOL CLOSURES
The BLM's proposal aims to give conservation equal importance to other uses of public lands. The agency claims that this approach would enhance the climate change resilience of public lands, protect wildlife habitats and landscapes, and preserve cultural and natural resources.
WATCH: HILLARY CLINTON MAY HAVE MADE SOME ENEMIES WITH THIS COMPARISON...
Under the rule, organizations would be able to bid on land to carry out specific restoration or mitigation activities.
Knudsen argued that conservation is not an approved use under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and that the proposal would effectively lock up federal land for conservation purposes. He emphasized that if conservation is to be prioritized, it should be done through the proper legislative process.
NANCY MACE STRIKES BACK: ACCUSATIONS FLY AS CONGRESSWOMAN CLAIMS STAFF PLOTTED AGAINST HER
In addition to the attorneys general, various industry groups have also voiced their opposition to the proposal. Mining groups, such as the National Mining Association and the American Exploration & Mining Association, as well as local cattlemen's associations, farmers' groups, and oil industry organizations, have expressed concerns about the potential impact of the rule on their respective industries.
TRUMP HAS A FEW WORDS FOR MTG AS SHE 'STIRS THE POT'
The National Mining Association stated that the proposal represents a significant shift in how the BLM manages federal lands and could have significant impacts on mining operations.
The American Exploration & Mining Association argued that the proposal violates the Federal Land Policy and Management Act by adding conservation as a use without congressional approval.
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR’S WIFE SHAKES UP NEW HAMPSHIRE RACE WITH EMOTIONAL PLEA
The Nevada Farm Bureau Federation called for the withdrawal of the rule, expressing concerns about its potential impact on small businesses, including ranchers who rely on public lands.
The South Dakota Cattlemen's Association similarly criticized the lack of stakeholder involvement in the development of the proposal and called for consultation with producers who will be affected by it.
ANOTHER DAY, ANOTHER BLUNDER: PRESIDENT BIDEN'S MAJOR FUMBLE AT WNBA CELEBRATION
The Independent Petroleum Association of New Mexico requested that the BLM withdraw and reconsider the proposed rule, citing legal issues and policy concerns.
The Montana Electric Cooperatives' Association warned that the rule could hinder electricity infrastructure development, potentially affecting renewable energy sources.
As opposition to the Biden administration's proposal grows, stakeholders from various industries and state attorneys general are urging the BLM to reconsider the rule.
They argue that the proposal goes against existing laws and could have detrimental effects on energy development, mining, agriculture, and other industries that rely on federal land.
The debate over the use of public lands and the balance between conservation and resource development continues to be a contentious issue.
Discover alternative ideas that will make you think
Engage in mind bending debate
Earn points, rise in rank, have fun
