As a Western Slope resident and public policy professional, I’m dismayed by the doublespeak in Rep. Jeff Hurd’s recent op-ed (Herald, Jun. 1) pitching his Productive Public Lands Act – a bill that would mandate development-oriented outcomes for Bureau of Land Management land plans across the West, including Colorado.
Hurd repeatedly champions his commitment to local decision-making, yet his bill would override years of local input and collaboration. The plans his bill targets were crafted with broad public engagement from county governments, conservationists, ranchers, recreation advocates, and the oil and gas industry. Notably, no county or cooperating agency filed a protest against the final plans – nor did the oil and gas industry – demonstrating these plans are well balanced and serve a variety of interests as written.
Take the Piceance Basin: The recently completed plans left 85% of fluid mineral reserves open to development, including the most productive areas, while new conservation designations were also created with broad support. On the chopping block are also two statewide plans resulting from years of engagement and collaboration from the state of Colorado and various hunting and angling interests.
This bill offers a top-down, development-fits-all mandate in place of community-informed planning. It would create chaos for land managers who are already overstretched and under-resourced due to funding cuts, and erase years of bipartisan collaboration.
These plans aren’t perfect, but they represent what’s possible when diverse stakeholders are engaged. Hurd should take his own advice – and listen to the communities he claims to represent.
Keeley Meehan
Paonia
