Biden administration responds to Utah and Wyoming’s legal challenge of public lands rule

Attorneys for the Biden administration called Utah and Wyoming’s legal challenge of a new public land policy “entirely unfounded” and “speculative” in a court filing last week, the latest in a new legal battle over how the federal government manages land in the West. 

Both states sued the U.S. Department of Interior in June for its new Public Lands Rule, which allows the Bureau of Land Management to offer conservation leases on its land. In July, Wyoming and Utah asked the court for a preliminary injunction, which would put the rule on hold while the lawsuit plays out. 

Utah sues the federal government again, this time over land conservation policy

Attorneys for the federal government responded to the request on July 30, asking the court to deny the injunction and accusing the states of providing “no credible basis” for their argument. 

In short, the federal government argued Wyoming and Utah did not provide enough evidence to suggest the rule is so harmful that the court should immediately halt it. 

The rule took effect on June 10 and opened the door for conservation leases, similar to how the BLM leases its land for mineral extraction, energy development, recreation or grazing. Now, groups can purchase a restoration lease, intended to improve habitats and restore or conserve land, or and a mitigation lease, aimed at offsetting existing development and projects on BLM land. 

But Utah and Wyoming, in their lawsuit filed in federal court in Utah’s Central Division, accused the BLM of having an “unreasonable” interpretation of federal guidelines that ultimately allowed the agency to forgo an environmental impact statement typically required under the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA. 

The lawsuit also claimed the BLM ignored concerns from the state of Utah, Wyoming politicians, mining and solar companies, and more during the public comment period. 

In their motion asking the court to halt the rule, both Utah and Wyoming warned they would suffer if the BLM moves forward and issues conservation leases — both states would have to divert resources and their environmental interests would be “irreparably” injured, court documents read. 

The conservation leases would promote “passive management,” the states warn, which “can lead to degraded landscapes, proliferation of noxious weeds, and a heightened risk of catastrophic wildfires.” 

In response, attorneys for the BLM wrote that the rule “does not impose any new regulatory obligations on third parties, affect any existing authorizations to use the public lands, or elevate conservation use above other allowable uses of federal lands.”

“Plaintiffs’ claims that the Rule will cause imminent irreparable environmental harm are therefore entirely unfounded,” court documents read. 

Plus, the federal government argues, the rule will actually help “the very environmental protection goals that Plaintiffs claim will be impaired.”