What the latest BLM director nominee says about selling public lands

Steve Pearce, 78, a Vietnam veteran and former New Mexico congressman, testified Wednesday at a Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee confirmation hearing as the most recent nominee to run the Bureau of Land Management.

Committee members questioned him about energy policy, illegal grazing, specific land-use plans and renewable energy permitting. The bulk of questions, though, were regarding public land sales. The panel did not vote on his nomination.

If the Senate confirms him, Pearce would oversee 245 million acres of public lands, including for recreation, natural resource extraction, wildlife habitats and cultural sites

During his seven terms representing New Mexico’s 2nd District, Pearce supported selling off public lands. As a BLM director, however, he was unequivocal about how that was not an option the role has at its disposal.

“The secretary has been very straightforward that he does not visualize any large-scale sales of land,” Pearce said in response to a question from Sen. Martin Heinrich, D-NM. “(The Federal Land Policy and Management Act) does not allow BLM to go in — the director of the BLM — to have these large-scale sales.“

When pressed by Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., if he had changed his mind regarding statements he made (with former Utah GOP Congressman Rob Bishop) that the federal government “do(es) not even need” most of the land it owns, Pearce did not forswear them.

Instead, he explained that he was “not so sure that I’ve changed” his mind, but was at the time representing constituents who were frustrated with the BLM.

“The statement made there was when I was representing, as a legislative person, a district that was, I think, at odds with federal agencies many times because the management of those lands is sometimes not as well done as it should be and local people pay the price. It cost them jobs, cost them their careers, cost them their land,” Pearce said. “So, I spoke of those frustrations, but I don’t — as I expressed to Sen. Heinrich — I don’t visualize selling large swaths of land."

Local insight, illegal grazing and energy permitting

In addition to making clear that selling public lands was not something the Department of the Interior wanted nor something the BLM director is allowed to do, a primary theme in Pearce’s comments was his stance that local interests are better suited to make decisions for federal lands than the federal government.

In his opening remarks, Pearce said that during his tenure in Congress he saw what he thought was something the Founding Fathers feared: “A federal government acting as an absentee landlord.”

Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., brought up that notion early in the proceedings. He asked Pearce about the Rock Springs resource management plan, a years-long contentious issue between the federal government and Wyoming, with locals angry over the current rule.

“One of the more important elements of any plan is local input,” Pearce said. “Custom and culture is known by the people who live in an area very seldom known by the people in Washington, and that is a strong commitment I make.”

Pearce made clear his intention to work on a case-by-case basis with individual states regarding their specific BLM needs.

“I’ll work with every member of the committee and their state to figure out what makes sense in their state,” Pearce said. “I don’t visualize the federal government having the best insight on that.”

Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto, D-Nev., asked Pearce if supports legislation that would allow for the boundaries of federal land disposals in Nevada to expand allowing for a variety of state initiatives to be met. Said otherwise, she asked if he would support making more BLM land available for state use. Pearce was clear in his support.

“You’d find me a willing partner on looking at that and working with the local communities because that’s the voice that we’ve got to protect. It’s their economy, it’s their life, it’s their homes, it’s their culture, it’s their customs,” he said. “Those are things that I’m deeply sensitive to, whether it’s Native American land or just your average mountain community or whatever. Yes, I would commit strongly to that.”

Cortez Masto also asked about illegal grazing. Pearce said that he would enforce the law.

“If they’re grazing illegally, oh, I think that the laws will be upheld and we should dig into that,” Pearce said. “There are pieces of the agency which deal with that, but absolutely believe that permission has to be given ... the permission has to be sacred.”

Cortez Mastro also asked about renewable energy permits needing to be routed through the Interior secretary directly. He said that he did not know enough about the issue to comment on it, which was one of several topics that Pearce said he was not able to answer. Methane gas and emissions reductions were also among the topics that Pearce was not able to discuss with the committee.

Interest groups oppose, support nomination

A variety of conservation groups have been vocal in their opposition to Pearce’s nomination.

“Put simply, Steve Pearce’s positions pose an existential threat to public lands and his nomination suggests that the administration intends to continue with its destructive agenda,” reads The Wilderness Society statement about his nomination. “A confirmation vote for Pearce is a vote for the fringe movement (that wants to) privatize public lands that was resoundingly rejected by the public this past summer.”

Source New Mexico, a local nonprofit newspaper in Pearce’s home state, reported in January that there were more than 80 environmental groups campaigning to prevent his nomination.

In addition to the usual conservation groups, hunter advocacy groups, former Republican colleagues from New Mexico, and veterans groups have all also spoken against Pearce’s nomination.

But does have the backing of other interest groups. The Western Energy Alliance, a trade organization representing companies that produce 80% of American energy, shared a letter in support of Pearce on the day of his hearing.

“Mr. Pearce is exceptionally qualified to lead BLM and to carry out the president’s priorities of unleashing energy, expanding access to recreation, and incentivizing conservation on public lands — each a pillar of the president’s agendas to unleash American energy and Making America Beautiful Again,“ reads the statement.

“His deep understanding of the western landscape and decades of experience bridging local, state, and federal interests make him uniquely prepared to guide the BLM’s mission of multiple use and sustained yield.”

The National Cattleman’s Beef Association also stands behind him.

“Pearce’s experience makes him thoroughly qualified to lead the BLM and tackle the issues federal lands ranchers are facing,” said Kaitlynn Glover, executive of the NCBA. “Ranchers need a permanent BLM director. NCBA and PLC members support his nomination, and we urge the Senate to swiftly confirm him.”

What Pearce has said about selling public lands

In several instances, Pearce has suggested the federal government should sell off some of its public lands or something similar.

In one clear example, he cosponsored the HEARD Act in 2016, which would have mandated that the U.S. Forest Service and the Department of the Interior sell lands, and do swaps with local governments. That bill would have also set time limits for the sales.

Throughout his tenure, he opposed the Antiquities Act in general, and worked to prevent several national monuments from being created. Most notably, Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks National Monument in New Mexico.

But in his statements at the Senate committee and responses to questions asked this week, Pearce insisted on his dedication to recreation and his personal relationship to public lands and beautiful landscapes.

“We must preserve the natural spaces so all people have access to the spiritual beauty of the outdoors, where hunting and fishing can be passed down from one generation to the next, where critical minerals can be developed, freeing us from dependence on China. Native American lands and resources can be protected.”