Utah has unleashed the latest salvo in an ongoing battle over federally managed Western lands, petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court to end Bureau of Land Management control over about 18.5 million acres in the state.

The suit filed Aug. 20 asks the high court to address whether the federal government can simply hold unappropriated lands within a state indefinitely, which the state argues the BLM is doing under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act.

The lawsuit would not affect the millions of “appropriated” acres already designated as national parks, monuments, wilderness areas, forests, tribal lands or military properties, state officials said.

The federal government currently controls nearly 70% of the land in Utah – a much higher percentage than in East Coast states like New York, where the U.S. controls less than 1% of land, Utah Gov. Spencer Cox notes.

“It is not a secret that we live in the most beautiful state in the nation,” Cox said. “But when the federal government controls two-thirds of Utah, we are extremely limited in what we can do to actively manage and protect our natural resources.

“We are committed to ensuring that Utahns of all ages and abilities have access to public lands,” the governor said. “The BLM has increasingly failed to keep these lands accessible and appears to be pursuing a course of active closure and restriction. It is time for all Utahns to stand for our land.”

Related:Industry leaders line up against BLM rule

Public Lands Rule

The state’s latest filing comes after it has already joined Wyoming and several farm groups in suing the U.S. Interior Department and BLM over the much-maligned Public Lands Rule, which was finalized earlier this year over the states’ objections.

The states and other entities, including the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association and Public Lands Council, contend the BLM sidestepped National Environmental Policy Act requirements. The livestock groups’ lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Wyoming seeks to overturn the rule, which critics say threatens generations of family ranching operations by undermining the long-held balance of multiple-use management.

“Under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, the BLM is supposed to balance the multiple uses of public lands, including livestock grazing, energy, mining, timber and recreation,” said NCBA President Mark Eisele, a Wyoming rancher. “The BLM’s rule upends this multiple use system by creating a brand new use for federal lands without congressional approval and in conflict with existing federal law.”

Federal officials claim the new Public Lands Rule will restore critical habitat and clean water and protect lands in the face of increasing drought and wildfire. They say the vast majority of the more than 200,000 comments the BLM received last year were in support of the rule.

Related:Western governors blast new BLM rule

The BLM has allies in conservation groups, including several that filed to intervene on the federal government’s behalf in the states’ suit in U.S. District Court in Utah. The Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, the Wilderness Society and the Conservation Lands Foundation want the court to deny a preliminary injunction sought by the states after the rule took effect in June.

“Instead of seeing the Public Lands Rule as a way to work with BLM on shared conservation goals, the state of Utah and its leaders are fighting these efforts at every turn,” said Stephen Bloch, SUWA’s legal director. “This lawsuit is out of touch with the majority of Utahns who support conservation and know climate change is a serious problem. Utah is predicted to be hit particularly hard by the impacts of a hotter, drier, and more unpredictable climate. The Public Lands Rule gives BLM and the public a framework and important tools to begin work to stem the tide.”

Land use restricted

But Western governors and agricultural and resource industry groups say the rule would restrict use of public lands to the detriment of other activities, including livestock grazing. They lined up last year in support of legislation in Congress that sought to block funding for the rule’s implementation.

Kathleen Sgamma, president of the Western Energy Alliance, has noted the federal government already preserves:

While challenges to the Public Lands Rule work their way through lower courts, Utah is also asking the nation’s highest court to consider the legality of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, which the state says affects about 34% of its territory.

These are unappropriated lands that the U.S. government is simply holding, without formally reserving it for any designated purpose, the state argues. As a result, Utah is deprived of a significant measure of sovereignty compared to other states, the suit contends.

“Nothing in the text of the Constitution authorizes such an inequitable practice,” Utah Attorney General Sean D. Reyes said. “In fact, the Framers of the Constitution carefully limited federal power to hold land within states. Current federal land policy violates state sovereignty and offends the original and most fundamental notions of federalism.”

For information on the suit, visit standforourland.utah.gov.