Zinke, Fellow Congress Members Suggest Giving States More Agency in Land and Natural Resource Management

States should have more sway when it comes to managing their land and natural resources, according to a trio of U.S. representatives who spoke at Glacier National Park’s Lake McDonald Lodge Wednesday afternoon.

The three speakers — Celeste Maloy, R-Utah, Tom Tiffany, R-Wisconsin and Montana’s own Rep. Ryan Zinke — said a combination of the Trump administration’s friendliness toward states and the Supreme Court’s overturn of the Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council decision, which took away the power of agencies to determine how to carry out laws, have created a friendlier environment for states to take more agency over management. The panel was moderated by Amanda Kaster-Averill, Montana’s director of the Department of Natural Resources and Conservation.

“Washington, D.C. is interesting,” Zinke, who served as Secretary of Interior during President Donald Trump’s first term, said. “From a former secretary… inside the Beltway, they want to make the decisions that affect out here. They want to make decisions on the Yellowstone, and they don’t know where the Yellowstone River is.

“But yet, they want to control water temperature, riparian, water flows, ins and outs, you know, wildlife. They want to control everything over a river where the only time that they’ve ever heard Yellowstone is when Kevin Costner makes a movie. And in the states, there’s a lot of anger out there about the mismanagement.”

Maloy said the idea that states are “incompetent” at managing natural resources has proliferated for years. She added Republicans — her own party — don’t have “clean hands” on giving states agency to handle their own lands.

But the panelists made the case that the relationship between states and the feds can change. Part of that change can come from congressional offices being in better touch with officials in their own states.

“I think, as Congress, we have to get out of that mindset that it takes a new federal program, a new federal agency, a new federal authority to fix problems, and we need maybe the federal government to stop interfering and act like we actually believe that the states are states, and they can manage resources,” Maloy said.

Their comments built on a series of panel discussions and presentations given throughout the week. The congress members converged on the Flathead Valley from Aug. 18-21 for the Western Policy Caucus. Hosted by the Western Caucus Foundation, the event brought together congress members, their staffers and other stakeholders focused on the West.

Panels touched on a wide range of policy issues. But, a common thread was how states and the federal government work together on land and natural resource management.

As it stands, states and the federal government share responsibilities of managing federal public lands. The Constitution’s Supremacy Clause means state law yields to federal law if the two come into conflict. So, the federal government has the final say on issues of federal land and natural resource management. A paper on state and local control of federal lands from the University of Montana’s Bolle Center for People and Forests found states have “assumed greater authority in federal land management since the 1970s, irrespective of what party is in power in the executive and legislative branches.”

It’s a more recent push to give states, instead of the federal government, control over federal lands and resources. That shift would “radically alter the traditional paradigm of federal lands management.” It’s a shift the paper’s authors write poses a greater risk to federal public lands.

Still, Zinke said management often starts on the front line, with the likes of county governments. He wasn’t the only person throughout the caucus to make the case that state and local governments should play more of a leading role in land and natural resource management.

Panelists who talked about the Endangered Species Act Tuesday suggested states could take a leading role in helping the federal government shift the culture away from protecting species. Instead, they posed the focus should be placed on moving species off the list and homing in on their recovery.

Another discussion, hosted by conservative political advocacy group Americans for Prosperity, highlighted ways states could lead in the wake of Chevron’s overturn. Ryan Mulvey, policy counsel at Americans for Prosperity, said Tuesday he’s paying attention to cases states are bringing to establish legal precedent, known as stare decisis, for Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the case that overturned the Chevron decision.

In that same discussion, Americans for Prosperity officials suggested Congress should be crafting new legislation in line with Loper. But, if Congress doesn’t do so, they said that burden lies with state legislatures. Representatives from the organization offered guidance Tuesday as to how legislators at both the federal and state level could craft bills in that vein.

Wednesday’s panel put an exclamation point on the theme of enhancing states’ agency that permeated throughout the event. Each panelist shared examples as to how their individual offices are working to do so.

Maloy, the representative from Utah, said she has a rule that her staffers can’t pitch her ideas unless they’ve talked to at least two leaders back home about it. And Tiffany, of Wisconsin, shared about an issue his office took up after a constituent pressured them to do so.

“You know, I hear people say to us all the time that, ‘you know, I know you’re really busy,  but I want to talk about this. I know you’re really busy,’” he said. “You don’t have to qualify that statement. We are an elected official, and we’re elected by you, and we’re supposed to do our jobs. And so, you should always be persistent. If you have a good, legitimate issue, be persistent with us, because we are there to serve you.”

As for Zinke, he emphasized the influence county commissioners have in his eyes. He also said people in the West have inherited a legacy to “make sure the outdoor experience lasts for generations.”

“But you know, largely, we have to think about how we’re going to manage it the next 100 years, because there’s challenges on wildlife corridors, there’s forest fires,” Zinke said. “And whether you’re a climate change advocate or denier, it doesn’t relieve you the responsibility of managing our forest. And I think management of public lands, it’s going to be more and more, because they ain’t building any more public lands. So, let’s manage it. And I think a lot of times, management starts at the front line.”