US House Looks To Give Land Control To Locals

The US House of representatives passed a resolution yesterday to void the BLM’s Planning 2.0 rule that took effect in December. The Planning 2.0 rule gave future control to the BLM for planning and use of nearly 250 million acres of public land, concentrated in western states, including Colorado. Representative Scott Tipton said he was troubled the BLM disregarded requests from western counties, farm bureaus, and Congress to allow their input into the development of the rule, and that he was proud to support the repeal of the over-reaching action. Tipton says the repeal will give local communities more control over land management.  The resolution now must be passed by the Senate for the repeal to take effect.

7 Responses to US House Looks To Give Land Control To Locals

  1. I DO NOT wish to see the governance of public land decentralized. The historical purpose of the creation of those Public Lands was as a heritage for ALL US citizens, not for the local few. I am AGAINST divesting all citizens of the right to enjoy those lands in perpetuity, as the lands were initially designated.

  2. Scott,
    Although I am not crazy about ‘big brother/big government’, I have more concerns about your relationship to the oil and gas industry and fear your inclination to support their interest in exploration and development, negatively impacting communities like ours in the North Fork Valley. Although the BLM is charged with oversight of their lands in the best interest of our country, therefor evaluate the role of oil and gas from that perspective, right now I trust them to protect our interest better than you.

  3. Giving land control to Locals is Not a good idea. These Public Lands is a heritage for All US citizens.

  4. Norman Williams

    I, too, am alarmed by any proposal to turn over the governance of federal lands to state or local authorities. It seems a thinly guised attempt to turn over properties that we all own as US citizens to local interests that may be bought more cheaply and then sold off to the private interests that can pay the most. Keep America’s lands American! That is, controlled by all of us.

  5. I am against local control of our public lands. This is the first step in privatization. Ultimately this would be economically damaging to our state as well as all western states. These public lands belong to all citizens of the United States.

  6. John St.George

    Local control of public lands could open those lands to massive energy
    exploration or the closure of lands to the public and potential sale of these lands to corporations or the wealthy.

  7. Daniel Nielsen

    I agree with the over individuals that public lands should remain in the hands of the Government agency that controls them. I hear all this talk of the Government agencies overstepping bounds and mismanagement. I would like to see some examples? If by all these job killing regulations it means that we protect the land and water for future generations than I’ll all for it.