In Central Washington, we are proud of the beauty and vitality of our federal lands. They support our economy, provide opportunities for recreation, and offer a haven for wildlife. Unfortunately, these lands and the cherished way of life they support are now under threat from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)’s proposed “Landscape and Conservation Health” rule, born from the controversial 30x30 program.
When President Biden signed an Executive Order at the start of his administration promising to put 30 percent of U.S. lands and waters into conservation status by 2030, concerns about federal overreach were immediately raised. While his aim sounds noble, the implications such actions could have on rural communities like ours in Central Washington are anything but.
“Conservation status” has yet to be defined by the Biden Administration, which is far from reassuring from an administration that has continued to restrict land use and access to public lands. What’s more, protective land designations do not necessarily mean healthy landscapes. Conservation efforts on public lands should be determined by assessing land health, not simply placing land into “conservation status.”
The BLM’s proposed rule takes this overreach even further by significantly restricting resource development on federal lands. While conservation is important, it shouldn't come at the cost of ignoring the multiple use mandate that federal lands were meant to support. Congress passed the Federal Land Policy Management Act of 1976 precisely to ensure these lands remained open to recreation, grazing, mining, and oil and gas development, among other uses. It's a balanced approach that has provided a sustainable yield for decades.
Central to our success in land stewardship are the hardworking ranchers, sportsmen, foresters, mineral and energy developers, and landowners. These individuals understand the land intimately and have been our trusted partners in conserving and managing our federal lands. Their time-tested, science-based practices have shown that effective conservation and public access are not mutually exclusive. In fact, these multiple uses often enhance conservation outcomes, making them vital to preserving our natural heritage.
Our rural communities are the backbone of land stewardship. They maintain the infrastructure, fund essential services, and ensure the safety of all who visit and enjoy our federal lands. If we limit these communities to conservation-only leases, that means no more grazing, no more hunting, and no more hiking. In short, we undermine their economies, which, in turn, hampers our ability to enjoy and explore these lands freely.
The question we must ask ourselves is why the Biden Administration is attempting to bypass Congress and disregard decades of proven best practices. The answer is elusive, but one thing is certain—the proposed rule does not align with the values and needs of Central Washington.
As your representative in Congress, I could not stand by and let this happen. That's why I proposed an amendment to prohibit funds from being used to finalize the BLM's proposed rule, and I am pleased to say it was adopted in the Interior and Environment Appropriations bill.
The Biden Administration is confusing conservation for preservation by sidestepping Congress. I am encouraged by the support of my Congressional colleagues, and I will continue to fight against the federal overreach on our federal lands.
