I was honored to address the recent annual meeting of the American Exploration and Mining Association (AEMA) in Reno, Nevada. Coming out west serves as a reminder of the chasm that exists between those Americans who earn their livelihoods and make their homes in this part of the country and those (like me) who live on the east coast.
Early in my DOJ legal career, I defended the U.S. Forest Service in a NEPA challenge over forest plans for the Humboldt and Toiyabe National Forests in Nevada. The Forest Rangers urged me to visit early in the litigation. Before they took me out to see some of the grazing allotments at issue in the case, they gave me some friendly advice.
“If we meet some of the local ranchers, don’t let them know you are from Washington, D.C.”
I nodded and added, “You realize I’m from Brooklyn, New York, right?”
My clients contemplated my accent for a moment. “Better yet, please don’t even speak until we get back to our office.”
Fast forward to last week. The AEMA staff announced the filing of a lawsuit challenging a 2011 settlement agreement between the government and environmental groups over the potential listing of the Greater Sage Grouse, with habitat across vast stretches of the American west. The case centers on whether the settlement agreement improperly constrains the government’s authority under the Endangered Species Act. But from my perspective, the gravamen of the complaint lies in an inherent distrust of Washington, D.C. making land use and policy decisions for folks living out west.
For the past several years, states, communities and businesses that would be greatly affected by the listing of the sage grouse have worked diligently to devise and implement management techniques, mitigation plans and other land use policies designed to protect habitat and avoid a formal listing of the species. They believe that the settlement agreement undercuts those efforts that they feel will result in real benefits, without the remarkably broad restrictions that could be imposed if the sage grouse is listed as threatened or endangered.
To put it even more bluntly: the plaintiffs sincerely believe that they know best how to manage land where they have worked and lived for generations. They view the settlement agreement as nothing more than a subterfuge, an under-the-table deal, designed to prevent multiple use of western federal lands.
Bridging this gap in trust between east and west clearly hasn’t progressed all that much since I was politely advised to keep my mouth shut out on the spectacularly beautiful Nevada range more than 25 years ago. In every human relationship, trust must be earned. Mining company representatives I spoke to share a passionately held belief that government officials should trust them to play a greater role in the management of public lands. In short, westerners want the chance to show how their way of life exists in harmony with the mandates of federal conservation and development laws. My eastern friends and colleagues should welcome such an invitation.
