GOP: U.S. land agency is moving West, closer to its territory | TribLIVE.com
U.S./World

GOP: U.S. land agency is moving West, closer to its territory

Associated Press
1417516_web1_1417516-899983f7dbc7471e858c4d437349367b
AP
In this Dec. 31, 2018, file photo, Sen. Cory Gardner, R-Colo., arrives at the Senate Chamber for an abbreviated pro-forma session at the Capitol in Washington. The headquarters of the U.S. government’s largest land agency will move from the nation’s capital to western Colorado, a Republican senator said Monday, July 15, 2019, a high-profile component of the Trump administration’s plan to reorganize management of the nation’s natural resources.
1417516_web1_1417516-ede9057227bd41bfaa7b8e14368abda7
AP
In this July 26, 2018, file photo, U.S. Deputy Secretary of the Interior David Bernhardt waits to speak during the annual state of Colorado energy luncheon sponsored by the Colorado Petroleum council in Denver.

DENVER — Some Westerners have long complained the U.S. government is an absentee landlord, managing vast tracts of public lands in their states from the nation’s capital instead of closer to the properties themselves.

GOP lawmakers say that may change soon.

The Bureau of Land Management has decided to move its headquarters from Washington to western Colorado, Sen. Cory Gardner, a Colorado Republican, said Monday.

He said the new headquarters would be in Grand Junction, a conservative city of about 63,000 people 250 miles (400 kilometers) west of Denver.

“The problem with Washington is too many policy makers are far removed from the people they are there to serve,” Gardner said in a news release. “This is a victory for local communities, advocates for public lands and proponents for a more responsible and accountable federal government.”

A Bureau of Land Management spokeswoman who declined to give her name said she couldn’t confirm or deny the move. An announcement about the agency’s plans was expected Tuesday.

The number of bureau jobs moving West appeared to be relatively small.

A spokesman for Utah Republican Rep. Rob Bishop said Colorado, Nevada and Utah could each gain 50 jobs as part of the reshuffling, and another 150 bureau jobs could be moved to other Western states.

The spokesman, Austin Hacker, said it was not yet certain whether all 300 relocated positions would come from Washington — where the bureau has only about 400 workers — or if any would move from other parts of the country.

It would be a symbolic victory, at least, and would put in place one high-profile component of the Trump administration’s plan to reorganize the way the government manages the nation’s natural resources.

Bishop said public lands decisions would be made in the West, “not by bureaucrats from thousands of miles away.”

The bureau, part of the Interior Department, oversees nearly 388,000 square miles (1 billion square kilometers) of public land, and 99% is in 12 Western states. The lands are rich in oil, gas, coal and grazing for livestock, as well as habitat for wildlife, hunting ranges, fishing streams and hiking trails.

The bureau is in the vanguard of President Donald Trump’s campaign to step up fossil fuel production on public land, and it has often been in the crosshairs of Democrats and conservationists who say the administration is more interested in mining and drilling than in protecting the environment.

Rep. Raul M. Grijalva, D-Arizona, chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, attacked the headquarters move and noted that Grand Junction is not far from Interior Secretary David Bernhardt’s hometown of Rifle, Colorado.

“Putting BLM headquarters down the road from Secretary Bernhardt’s hometown just makes it easier for special interests to walk in the door demanding favors without congressional oversight or accountability,” Grijalva said. “The BLM officials based in Washington are here to work directly with Congress and their federal colleagues, and that function is going to take a permanent hit if this move goes forward.”

The bureau has 9,000 employees, most of them scattered among 140 state, district or field offices.

Grijalva said he suspects the bureau’s true motive is to force out some employees who would not be willing to move. The Interior Department has previously denied that was a reason.

Key details of the move were unknown, including how much it would cost, how many employees would remain in Washington and, most importantly, whether the move would have a significant impact on land management decisions or would be more a token of the administration’s plan to decentralize the bureau.

Colorado Gov. Jared Polis, a Democrat, welcomed the change but reminded the Trump administration that he and other Democrats want the president to do more to protect the environment and recreational access on public lands.

“Hard to think of a better place to house the department responsible for overseeing our beloved public lands,” he said in a written statement.

Interior Department officials have said they also considered Denver; Salt Lake City; Albuquerque, New Mexico; and Boise, Idaho, for the new headquarters.

Former Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke initiated the plan to reorganize his department. Zinke stepped down in January amid ethics allegations, and Bernhardt has continued the planning but with less fanfare.

Categories: News | World
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.