South Dakota Governor and Republicans Criticize Proposed Conservation Leases at Congressional Hearing

During a recent congressional hearing, South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem and other Republican lawmakers voiced their concerns about the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) proposed rule to allow conservation leases on federal lands. The rule, which aims to treat conservation as a comparable land use to mining, oil and gas development, and livestock grazing, has faced opposition from Republicans, particularly those representing Western states that host a significant portion of BLM lands.

The proposed rule seeks to establish a conservation leasing system, similar to existing divisions for extractive activities. Supporters of the rule, including many Democrats and environmental groups, argue that it provides a valuable tool for managing lands threatened by climate change without significantly impacting existing land uses such as ranching, mining, and energy production.

However, Republican lawmakers fear that the rule undermines the BLM's core responsibility of facilitating grazing, mining, and oil and gas opportunities. In response, Representative John Curtis introduced a bill aimed at countering the proposed rule, which garnered support from several Republican co-sponsors.

Governor Noem, in agreement with her Republican colleagues, expressed her opposition to formal conservation leases, arguing that current conservation practices already play a significant role in BLM land management. She raised concerns about potential risks associated with third-party access and authority over public lands through conservation leases, emphasizing the need to prioritize American interests.

Governors Brad Little of Idaho, Greg Gianforte of Montana, and Joe Lombardo of Nevada also joined Noem and Wyoming Governor Mark Gordon in a letter to U.S. Interior Secretary Deb Haaland, urging the withdrawal of the proposal.

While Democrats on the committee criticized the hearing as a "hyper-partisan performance," some Republicans argued that the BLM's understanding of Western land management was flawed. They voiced concerns about the potential negative consequences of the rule and questioned the agency's public engagement strategy, highlighting the absence of meetings in rural areas and suggesting that the 75-day public comment period was insufficient.

Following the hearing, the BLM announced a 15-day extension for public comments, extending the deadline to July 5. BLM officials clarified that the proposed rule would not impede grazing leases and that mechanical forest thinning, a common conservation technique, would still be permitted.

Despite Republican opposition and concerns raised during the hearing, supporters of the proposal dismissed claims of negative impacts and emphasized the importance of balanced land management practices.

Photo Credit: pexels-ron-lach