Members of the Congressional Western Caucus are asking Department of Interior Secretary Deb Haaland to reconsider the relocation of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) headquarters back to Washington, D.C.
In a letter sent to Haaland, the coalition strongly opposed the relocation, stating it lacks transparency and is “fundamentally flawed, and should be abandoned.”
In September, Haaland announced the agency’s headquarters would relocate to Washington, D.C., while the current headquarters in Grand Junction, CO, would be the agency’s Western headquarters. The Interior Department press release stated the relocation came after “substantive engagement with employees, Tribal consultations, and meetings with local, state, and federal leaders.”
The department said the Grand Junction office would “reinforce Western perspectives in decision-making” and play a role in the bureau’s clean energy, outdoor recreation, conservation and scientific missions, “among other important work as a leadership center in the West.”
The caucus states the move would “relocate senior staff further away from the lands they are responsible for managing and cause significant harm to local communities.” The letter further states that while BLM has acknowledged it will cost taxpayers “millions of dollars,” the BLM has failed to assess the total costs accurately.
“We are deeply concerned that the agency is relying on budget gimmicks and failing to disclose the actual costs and details associated with this request,” the letter stated.
Caucus members in the letter cited it cost $20.3 million to relocate 328 BLM staff members to Grand Junction, but it resulted in savings of $5 million annually in salary and lease costs and an additional $1.9 million in travel expenses.
The letter noted the move could not be undone, as the lease for BLM’s building in Washington, D.C., has expired and is no longer available. Despite plans to have the relocated employees work in the Interior Department’s main building, BLM failed to disclose how much remodeling costs would be and the costs of higher leases and higher locality pay, the letter alleged.
The letter cites the September press release stating while positions at the Grand Junction location “will grow and expand,” the number of positions will actually be reduced from 41 to 16. It also cites that BLM failed to release responses to employee questionnaires on the relocation, raising further questions about the transparency of the process.
Lastly, caucus members questioned the timing of the relocation, citing that despite employees not moving until 2023, it will create “substantial uncertainty” and “upend the lives of current employees living out West.”
The Congressional Western Caucus concluded that the move “appears to be politically motivated” and fails to consider what is best for the citizens that use public lands. Further, they assert it upends the agency’s functionality, causes uncertainty and lacks transparency.
“The (BLM) oversees one out of every 10 acres in the United States, and when we visited Grand Junction, we heard firsthand about how the BLM headquarters has benefited local communities, economies, and—importantly—their ability to manage public lands throughout the West,” said Chairman Dan Newhouse (R-WA-04) in a statement. “This new information confirms what I and so many of my Western Caucus colleagues feared when the Biden Administration originally announced this move. It is clear they continue to be out of touch with rural America, and we urge them to reconsider this disastrous proposal.” — Charles Wallace, WLJ editor
