Posted on 11/19/2021 2:45:05 AM PST by Kaslin
A new Government Accountability Office (GAO) report claims the 2019 relocation of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) headquarters out West undermined the agency.
“BLM lacks reasonable assurance the agency will have the workforce necessary to achieve its goals in managing millions of acres of public lands,” their report concluded.
Predictably, media outlets like the Washington Post suggested the Trump-era policy was rooted in racism.
In September, Biden’s Interior Department announced it would transfer most operations back to the nation’s capital—despite opposition from Western governors and local stakeholders.
Why was BLM HQ originally moved out West, and was the decision rooted in racism? Is the move’s impact being overblown by critics? Here are the facts.
BLM Should Be Close to Those Living Near Public Lands
According to one former BLM careerist, the management culture is historically “corrupt, regressive, biased, and secretive.” A management culture, mind you, that has largely operated out of D.C.
Imagine that?
If an agency moves away from Washington and becomes more accountable to local partners and stakeholders, that decision should be celebrated — not derided.
How can employees effectively manage public lands from afar—especially being thousands of miles away in Washington? They can’t without maintaining a strong presence in the Western U.S.
Remember Obama’s BLM? His agency imposed a controversial rule, Planning 2.0, giving the federal government “too much influence over public land decisions and marginalizes state and local input.”
The Biden administration would be wise to listen to those directly impacted by BLM policies— not be influenced by special interest groups concentrated out this way.
Move Brought Accountability, Laid Foundation for Rebuilding Trust
BLM may oversee 245 million surface land acres, but it has a troubled history of conflict, bureaucracy, and controversial directors. The newly-confirmed head Tracy Stone-Manning, for instance, has serious baggage.
Maintaining a robust Western office was a good faith gesture for rebuilding trust in the agency.
Why? Relocation was viewed as an accountability tool to ensure multiple-use, sustained yield management of public lands is maintained. Many true conservationists today worry the Biden administration could reimage public lands management through the “public use” alternative being floated today.
In October, the Utah delegation lambasted the federal government’s decision, praising the original 2019 move for bringing “a valuable new perspective”:
“We are equally disappointed that the Bureau of Land Management’s headquarters will be moving from Colorado to Washington, D.C. – thousands of miles away from over 90 percent of the country’s federally-owned and managed lands. Locating the BLM away from the nation’s capital and near the lands managed brought a valuable new perspective to the BLM and should have served as a model for other federal departments.
There Was Bipartisan Support for BLM HQ Relocation
National Democrats and mainstream media outlets ignored an important component to BLM’s relocation to Grand Junction, Colorado. It not only enjoyed Republican support; it also enjoyed support from Governor Jared Polis, Colorado’s Democratic governor.
Governor Polis’ support for the move was firmly well-established. As a congressman, Polis supported legislation alongside fellow Colorado Democrat Earl Perlmetter to relocate the agency out West.
In February, he implored resident Biden to keep the Grand Junction HQ in his state.
“Locating the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) headquarters in Colorado has led to economically significant job placements in both the Grand Junction and Lakewood, Colorado offices while improving the knowledge and culture of the agency,” Polis wrote in a letter. “While the initial implementation was flawed, now that this office and these individuals and families are settled here, they are an invaluable part of their respective communities and it would be highly disruptive to undo this effort, as well as a waste of the public resources invested to date. For these reasons and more I remain extremely supportive of the Bureau of Land Management keeping and expanding their national headquarters in our great state.”
He added, “Ensuring that more of our Bureau of Land Management employees are located in and around land under their stewardship is already helping to make the agency a stronger intergenerational steward of our amazing public lands.”
Conclusion
At the insistence of Governor Polis and Colorado’s two Democratic Senators, Biden’s Interior Department reportedly settled on maintaining “dual headquarters” in both Grand Junction and Washington, D.C.
Is this compromise decision still racist, Washington Post?
Although keeping the Colorado office is welcomed news, talk is cheap. Recent actions taken by Biden and company, sadly, don't inspire much confidence on this front.
WhenI read BLM these days, I don’t think land management.
I spend I lot of time out west.
When the garbage started I thought why is the BLM protesting.
The idea is to get employees to quit. Who wants to move to keep their job. Patiently waiting for other departments to do the same.
Seems the BLM has problems with having enough people to manage the lands.
They need to just give ownership of the majority of those lands to the various States. Then, the land could be offered for mining, drilling, ranching, farming, et al.
I thought this was a story about Black Life Matters 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
[snip] A new Government Accountability Office (GAO) report claims the 2019 relocation of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) headquarters out West undermined the agency... In September, Biden’s Interior Department announced it would transfer most operations back to the nation’s capital—despite opposition from Western governors and local stakeholders... According to one former BLM careerist, the management culture is historically “corrupt, regressive, biased, and secretive.” A management culture, mind you, that has largely operated out of D.C... How can employees effectively manage public lands from afar—especially being thousands of miles away in Washington? They can’t without maintaining a strong presence in the Western U.S. Remember Obama’s BLM? His agency imposed a controversial rule, Planning 2.0, giving the federal government “too much influence over public land decisions and marginalizes state and local input.” [/snip]
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.