Yes, and that chapter was authored by Pendley, former oil industry attorney who headed the BLM during Trump’s last term. Thanks for the link; I hadn’t seen that one. I think project 2025 will be coming up a lot here as we see attempts to turn its recommendations into policy.
Brilliant idea, Rebecca! I will admit to feeling sick reading it but that’s not on you! The sheer venality, greed, corruption and meanness behind these appointments and policies is breathtaking. I’m thankful to live in a state that values our environment (even if it’s mostly for economic reasons - tourism and fisheries). I’d like to think if the federal lands programs are dismantled, they could return land back to the tribes from which it was stolen. But maybe that’s too much to hope for. (Just think how much land could’ve been put into trust with $1 billion, rather than spent on campaign ads.)
Question about states standing up to federal corruption — I think the hosts of Strict Scrutiny podcast said that federal law takes priority over state law. Do I have that right? What about federal policy (ie, interpretation of statutes) over state laws? 🤔
It does! So in areas where the feds have regulated, like in the enviro field the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, etc., fed law will prevail. But, as an example of an exception, California has had a fed waiver for years to allow it to issue stricter clean air standards than the feds, regulating the auto industry in particular. So CA has been seen as pushing the overall car industry in a greener direction simply by virtue of its huge car market and the markets in states that have followed CA's lead. CA's gov is racing to get Biden to re-up the waiver before he leaves office, for example, because that would make it much harder for Trump to reverse it (the idea being that it's much harder for a prez to get rid of an active waiver than it is for him to deny a renewal request). Trump explicitly stated during his last term that it would be a priority for him (and a huge auto industry giveaway) to invalidate CA's clean air waiver.
There's also a lot of wiggle room in wildlife law because traditionally the power to regulate their wildlife was left to the states, even on federal lands. And there's a lot of gray area around federal policy versus state law as you mentioned, some of it is dependent on "bribing" the states with federal funding to enact the policies, and those kinds of questions often go to the US Supreme Court, so that's another layer of complication. There's probably a whole post in this, so thanks for sparking it, and for your support of this idea! 🙏
The letter is precisely my cup of tea, so don't be hesitant to publish more. Indeed the Dept. of Interior and Ag. appts are critical. I expect an attempt to sell off or privatize large blocks of public lands and open up hithereto sacrosanct areas to economic exploitation (logging, mining, resort development and so forth. However on the bright side, there will be enormous push back I suspect from powerful conservative forces who like their public lands hunting and fishing etc.
Ooh yes, I think you are right about the pushback, and that highlights a really important point about how crucial it is for those who love public lands and wildlife from across the political spectrum to put aside their differences, band together in coalition, and fight to keep the places they love from being sold off to the highest bidder. Thanks, Michael.
Well just out: Interior goes to Gov. Burgum of North Dakota. He's a mixed bag and a bit of a relief after the absolutely zany appointments of Gabbard and Gaetz. At least he's a competent administrator and is pretty knowledgeable. Problem is he's very fossil fuel and extractive industry oriented. A very bad choice from my point of view, but far better than Watt or Zinke were. Trump could have chosen far worse if that's any tiny consolation.
Thanks for this, Rebecca. I talked to a friend at EPA this week. She's pretty nervous.
One small piece of helpful news is that our new Washington State Governor, Bob Ferguson, in his previous role as AG sued the first Trump administration almost 100 times. We have many local protections, such as SEPA, and wetland protections, but the agencies are woefully underfunded.
Yes, I think a lot of our efforts in the next several years will need to be directed toward pushing our states to self-fund a lot of this good work that's been supplemented by fed funding. You are lucky in WA to have a state endangered species act and SEPA as you mentioned. Many states don't, but there may be a groundswell of support for some of their state legislatures to enact one or both now.
Brave. Wise. Noble.
Thank you for your voice that lifts up those who speak languages we once knew.🌱🌿💙🌎
Katharine, thanks, and same to you. 💚💚
Thanks for this and know that you are not alone.
Have you checked out Project 2025 plans for DOI?
Project 2025 and Its Plans for the Nation’s Public Lands | Portside https://portside.org/2024-09-12/project-2025-and-its-plans-nations-public-lands
Yes, and that chapter was authored by Pendley, former oil industry attorney who headed the BLM during Trump’s last term. Thanks for the link; I hadn’t seen that one. I think project 2025 will be coming up a lot here as we see attempts to turn its recommendations into policy.
Brilliant idea, Rebecca! I will admit to feeling sick reading it but that’s not on you! The sheer venality, greed, corruption and meanness behind these appointments and policies is breathtaking. I’m thankful to live in a state that values our environment (even if it’s mostly for economic reasons - tourism and fisheries). I’d like to think if the federal lands programs are dismantled, they could return land back to the tribes from which it was stolen. But maybe that’s too much to hope for. (Just think how much land could’ve been put into trust with $1 billion, rather than spent on campaign ads.)
Question about states standing up to federal corruption — I think the hosts of Strict Scrutiny podcast said that federal law takes priority over state law. Do I have that right? What about federal policy (ie, interpretation of statutes) over state laws? 🤔
It does! So in areas where the feds have regulated, like in the enviro field the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, etc., fed law will prevail. But, as an example of an exception, California has had a fed waiver for years to allow it to issue stricter clean air standards than the feds, regulating the auto industry in particular. So CA has been seen as pushing the overall car industry in a greener direction simply by virtue of its huge car market and the markets in states that have followed CA's lead. CA's gov is racing to get Biden to re-up the waiver before he leaves office, for example, because that would make it much harder for Trump to reverse it (the idea being that it's much harder for a prez to get rid of an active waiver than it is for him to deny a renewal request). Trump explicitly stated during his last term that it would be a priority for him (and a huge auto industry giveaway) to invalidate CA's clean air waiver.
There's also a lot of wiggle room in wildlife law because traditionally the power to regulate their wildlife was left to the states, even on federal lands. And there's a lot of gray area around federal policy versus state law as you mentioned, some of it is dependent on "bribing" the states with federal funding to enact the policies, and those kinds of questions often go to the US Supreme Court, so that's another layer of complication. There's probably a whole post in this, so thanks for sparking it, and for your support of this idea! 🙏
Wow, thanks for this detailed and thoughtful answer. Fascinating! I look forward to future posts.
Thanks for this important update, and I will definitely be following upcoming Letters.
Thank you, looking forward to these.
The letter is precisely my cup of tea, so don't be hesitant to publish more. Indeed the Dept. of Interior and Ag. appts are critical. I expect an attempt to sell off or privatize large blocks of public lands and open up hithereto sacrosanct areas to economic exploitation (logging, mining, resort development and so forth. However on the bright side, there will be enormous push back I suspect from powerful conservative forces who like their public lands hunting and fishing etc.
Ooh yes, I think you are right about the pushback, and that highlights a really important point about how crucial it is for those who love public lands and wildlife from across the political spectrum to put aside their differences, band together in coalition, and fight to keep the places they love from being sold off to the highest bidder. Thanks, Michael.
Well just out: Interior goes to Gov. Burgum of North Dakota. He's a mixed bag and a bit of a relief after the absolutely zany appointments of Gabbard and Gaetz. At least he's a competent administrator and is pretty knowledgeable. Problem is he's very fossil fuel and extractive industry oriented. A very bad choice from my point of view, but far better than Watt or Zinke were. Trump could have chosen far worse if that's any tiny consolation.
Ugh. I'll spend some time reading up on Burgum this weekend.
Thanks for this, Rebecca. I talked to a friend at EPA this week. She's pretty nervous.
One small piece of helpful news is that our new Washington State Governor, Bob Ferguson, in his previous role as AG sued the first Trump administration almost 100 times. We have many local protections, such as SEPA, and wetland protections, but the agencies are woefully underfunded.
Yes, I think a lot of our efforts in the next several years will need to be directed toward pushing our states to self-fund a lot of this good work that's been supplemented by fed funding. You are lucky in WA to have a state endangered species act and SEPA as you mentioned. Many states don't, but there may be a groundswell of support for some of their state legislatures to enact one or both now.
Thank you for your thorough and tireless work, Rebecca.
You are very welcome! Thanks for reading.
Great piece. Very much agree on the need to bolster local enviro work. For some reason, I couldn't get the links to work. Thanks, Rob