These officials have launched a reorganization plan to relocate BLM’s headquarters from Washington to several Western states, where most of the lands administered by the bureau are. Interior Secretary David Bernhardt asserts that decisions about public lands in Western states need to be made closer to the people who are affected by them.

We agree with that logic and so have other directors; that’s the reason 97 percent of BLM personnel already work in the West. Most of BLM’s decisions are already grounded in local collaborations with public participation, a critical part of each step.

So why is Bernhardt relocating much of the remaining 3 percent of BLM? Our view is that the plan is a poorly disguised attempt to destroy the agency from the inside. BLM state directors and field managers in the West already have the authority to make land-use, leasing and permitting decisions and facilitate coordination with state, tribal and local governments. The 3 percent in Washington focuses on policy, oversight and coordination at the national level with other federal agencies, Congress and national public interest groups. This is work that must be done in Washington to be effective.

BLM’s Washington-based employees have been given a stark choice: relocate within a short period of time or be terminated. The plan was formulated with little or no input from the public, tribal officials or employees, nor was it subjected to an impartial fiscal analysis. With few senior career employees in the BLM’s headquarters office, powerful political interests will find it easier to place a heavy thumb on the scale in favor of special interest groups and their lobbyists and against the greater public good.

We would know. As former directors, we have worked with these employees and their predecessors and recognize the critical importance of having a strong presence in the nation’s capital. Their jobs require coordination with stakeholders in Washington — something not easily done from across the continent. Bernhardt may consider these people “Washington bureaucrats” who are disconnected from the effects of their work, but we know they are dedicated public servants who are vital to the agency.

The result will be that public land-use decisions will be made instead by politically appointed officials within the Office of the Secretary of the Interior, without the involvement of experienced career BLM resource managers and senior policy specialists. An agency that does not have its directorate and senior policy specialists in Washington will be out of touch with national policymakers and other federal land- and resource-management agencies and will quickly become inefficient and irrelevant. The 97 percent of BLM staff who diligently manage our public lands in the West will suffer without this national presence.

This seems to be the primary goal of the relocation proposal. The political forces shaping this plan have been anything but transparent, sidestepping Congress and making little information about the plan available to the public.

Sadly, we don’t need much information to deduce the true intent: when acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney talked about a similar plan for the Agriculture Department, he said it was “wonderful” that staff quit, a result that meant the agency was cut off at the knees. When staff quit or are marginalized, powerful interests take over and the balance between land conservation and land development shifts heavily toward the latter.

We still have hope. Congress controls BLM’s budget, and it can and must use the upcoming Dec. 20, funding deadline to block this chaotic and senseless move. Doing so will ensure the agency is appropriately staffed and accessible to lawmakers, partner agencies, stakeholders and the public, all of whom share in the future of our public lands. Most of all, it will mean that BLM will continue to manage public resources on a multiple-use manner in the most responsible way possible.

America’s sound land-management processes have been in place for decades and successfully worked with the agendas of differing administrations and interests. The mission of BLM is complex, and the agency often finds itself in the middle of fierce but important conflicts over the best use of our nation’s lands. It can be a rough, difficult process, but it works. BLM’s responsibility is to determine — with the help of other agencies and stakeholders — the best course of action for all of the 245 million acres it manages.

Congress must stand up for the BLM, but, more importantly, it must stand up on behalf of all Americans and ensure this step to dismantle public ownership of land and resources doesn’t happen. These are your lands. Let’s keep it that way.

