Migrating towards state approval for federal land projects

What’s good for the goose is also good for the gander, or so the saying goes. But this adage never seems to hold true for the federal land discussion, even when an alliance could benefit both sides of the debate. The current federal efforts to prioritize the energy independence of the United States may finally ruffle enough feathers to embolden an agreement on the necessity of local and state-level influence on federal projects.

For years, Idahoans have objected to the federal Lava Ridge Wind Energy project due to environmental, historical, and economic concerns. But the prior administration was obstinate in its fixation on choosing environmental interests over local community desires, attempting to greenlight this project in its waning days in office. The locally opposed wind farm was stopped via executive order on day one of the current administration.

But the threat of federal overreach still lingers. Why? Special interests are unwilling to give local communities and states a long-lasting legislative authority to oppose unwanted federal projects. Too many groups continue to place their trust in the future possibility of an agreeable omnipotence in Washington, D.C., and naïvely believe public land in federal hands will protect natural resources. 

But when has the federal government been a better judge of America’s environmental and economic future than the local communities affected by these decisions? The answer is rarely.

The communities affected by the federally attempted Lava Ridge Wind Energy Project would agree. After years of battling the project, Idahoans have a temporary stay if the next administration doesn’t resume the campaign. Now, many communities and businesses near northern Minnesota’s Boundary Waters may also agree. Local and state-level voices need a final say in their regions, instead of subjection to the political ping-pong of administrations. 

Minnesota’s Boundary Waters are familiar with the political back and forth of administrations. Twin-Metals Minnesota, a subsidiary of Chilean-based mining company Antofagasta, applied for and were denied permits under Obama, were granted permits and leases under the first Trump Administration, and then were subjected to a moratorium on mining in the Superior National Forest under Biden. Now, the second Trump Administration is attempting to reopen avenues allowing the mining operation to begin.

In June, Secretary Brooke Rollins tweeted, “Today, @USDA is proud to announce that we are initiating the process to cancel the mineral withdrawal in the Rainey River watershed on the Superior National Forest.”

But should this national voice overwhelm the local perspectives on both sides of an issue?

Congressman Pete Stauber (MN-08) said, “The Biden administration’s mineral withdrawal in the Superior National Forest two years ago was a direct attack on our way of life in northern Minnesota and threatened our nation’s strategic national security.”

Or as Ingrid Lyons, Executive Director of Save the Boundary Waters said, “The Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW) is America’s most-visited wilderness area and the crown jewel of Minnesota. It contains 1.1 million acres of clean water and intact woodlands. 70% of Minnesotans across all political backgrounds want to see the Boundary Waters permanently protected.”

Throughout the vacillating, these local voices and communities were never granted the legal authority to accept or deny the project, but were only left vulnerable to the federal government’s reigning purview. For Minnesota, only 6.8 percent of land is under federal control.

Imagine how states with large amounts of federally-owned land like Nevada (80.1%), Utah (63.1%), and Idaho (61.90%), navigate economic and environmental futures when the federal government plays a dominant role in their development and/or conservation potential.

Idaho attempted the “Don’t Do It Act,” by Senator Jim Risch, to block the Lava Ridge Wind Energy. Minnesota proposed the “Boundary Waters Wilderness Protection and Pollution Prevention Act” sponsored by Rep. Betty McCollum. But neither of these efforts made it past an introduction.

States need a legal say on what happens to the federal lands within their borders, regardless of the administration. The “Don’t Do It Act” is a great place to start. Instead of limiting the scope to wind and solar, the legislation should be expanded. All natural resource projects would be denied “if the Secretary has received from the Governor of the State in which the proposed project is located notice that the State legislature has enacted legislation disapproving the proposed project.” 

Perpetual lawsuits and disjointed legislative attempts to block undesirable federal projects are economically stifling and environmentally threatening. A policy honoring local say on federal land development might be the means to finally get two differing viewpoints to flock together.