Trump rollback risks public land protections in California | Opinion
If you live in California, you know how much our public lands matter. Whether you’re hiking the Pacific Crest Trail, watching wildlife in the desert or visiting the coast, these places are part of our shared national story.
After a 40-year career with the Bureau of Land Management, including serving as California state director, I’ve seen firsthand how important it is to care for these lands wisely. The BLM manages 245 million acres of public lands across the U.S., including some of the most sensitive wildlife habitat and culturally significant sites in the country.
These lands support all different uses, including recreation, grazing, hunting, fishing, energy development, Native American cultures as well as the natural ecosystems we need to survive. That’s not always easy to balance, but it’s exactly what the BLM is charged to do under federal law.
That’s why I strongly supported development of the 2024 Public Lands Rule, and why I believe the Trump administration’s decision to throw it out is a serious mistake.
The Public Lands Rule is a smart, balanced update to how the BLM manages land. It gives long-overdue attention to conservation by putting it on equal footing with commercial uses like mining or grazing. That’s not a radical shift — in fact, when Congress passed the federal law guiding the BLM’s mission nearly 50 years ago, it required the bureau to protect environmental and cultural values.
The 2024 rule helps the agency finally live up to that mandate by creating clear, consistently applicable, accountable conservation policies similar to those that have been developed for commercial uses.
The rule also modernizes standards for land health — something we haven’t updated since the mid-90s. It helps the BLM use better data and science to guide decisions, which means cleaner water, healthier wildlife and smarter development. And it provides tools for fixing stream culverts, removing invasive plants or fencing off sensitive areas. These are common sense solutions that benefit both the land and the people who rely on it.
Much of this work would occur when the BLM prepares land use plans or analyzes proposed actions. One of the biggest improvements in the rule is how it handles Areas of Critical Environmental Concern — rare habitats, sacred tribal sites or fragile ecosystems that Congress decided deserve extra protection.
For decades, the BLM struggled with inconsistent management of Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, but the new rule fixed that by creating a transparent, standardized process for identifying and managing them.
That’s especially important here in California, where Areas of Critical Environmental Concern and clear conservation standards play a key role in long-term management plans across the entire state. In the north, big trees and salmon streams get attention in the Northwest California Integrated Resource Management Plan, developed as a collaborative effort with communities, local governments, tribes and other partners. In the south, the Desert Renewable Energy and Conservation Plan also relies on Areas of Critical Environmental Concern and clear conservation standards.
While the legal standards would remain, repealing the rule removes clarity on how conservation values should be treated.
Repealing this rule isn’t just bad policy, it will slow down decision-making, lead to more lawsuits and make it harder for the BLM to do its job. That hurts everyone: outdoor enthusiasts, ranchers, energy developers, conservationists and local communities and economies that depend on the public’s access to their public lands.
Jim Kenna is a former California state director of the Bureau of Land Management.