Like Countable?

Install the App
TRY NOW

senate Bill S. 1007

Should the Bureau of Land Management’s HQ be Closer to the Lands it Manages in the Western States?

Argument in favor

It makes no sense for the Bureau of Land Management to have its headquarters in Washington D.C. when 99% of the lands it manages are in the Western states. Relocating the HQ would give decision makers more insight into how their policies impact local communities.

Jackson's Opinion
···
05/04/2017
This bill, if passed, could not only save so much money but it could also allow for better decision making on the BLM's part. Let's relocate the BLM's office to where most of their area focus is! Many have even proposed it be in Grand Junction Colorado which would be great for this area!
Like (42)
Follow
Share
Don's Opinion
···
04/08/2018
It wasn’t until Teddy Roosevelt went west, to engage in the cattle business, that he had his first real contact with Native Americans. It changed his opinion and shifted his involvement with them. It was the “eyes on” first hand experience that influenced his decisions from those first encounters. Same holds true for land management bureaucrats. Eyes and hands on the land they’re charged with managing is important.
Like (15)
Follow
Share
tituswife's Opinion
···
04/08/2018
Get the bureaucrats out of the swamp, and with the people who write their paychecks, and who are directly affected by their decisions.
Like (12)
Follow
Share

Argument opposed

It doesn’t make a difference whether the Bureau of Land Management’s headquarters is located in Washington D.C. or one of the Western states. Moving the headquarters wouldn’t lead to better informed policymakers or lead to substantially decisions.

IllWill's Opinion
···
04/08/2018
This is a pointless bill. The BLM has plenty of regional offices in Western states. BLM headquarters should be in Washington D.C. because that’s where all the policymaking is happening. This bill is just a distraction and moving the HQ will be a waste of money.
Like (70)
Follow
Share
Ronda 's Opinion
···
02/19/2018
Where they’re located doesn’t have anything to do with the decision making process. This is a complete waste of money.
Like (52)
Follow
Share
Beth's Opinion
···
04/08/2018
The HQs should be in Washington DC because that is where the policy decisions are made.
Like (26)
Follow
Share

bill Progress


  • Not enacted
    The President has not signed this bill
  • The house has not voted
  • The senate has not voted
      senate Committees
      Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
    IntroducedMay 2nd, 2017

What is Senate Bill S. 1007?

This bill would require the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to submit a strategy and timeline for relocating its headquarters from Washington D.C. to Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, or Wyoming in a manner that will save the maximum amount of taxpayer money practicable. It would also authorize the relocation.

Impact

The Bureau of Land Management.

Cost of Senate Bill S. 1007

A CBO cost estimate is unavailable.

More Information

In-Depth: Sponsoring Sen. Cory Gardner (R-CO) introduced this bill to move the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) headquarters to one of the 12 Western states:

“Moving BLM’s headquarters West is a commonsense solution that Coloradans from across the political spectrum support. Ninety-nine percent of the nearly 250 million acres of land managed by BLM is West of the Mississippi River, and having the decision-makers present in the communities they impact will lead to better policy. Coloradans want more Colorado common sense from Washington and this proposal accomplishes that goal.”

This legislation is supported by four Republican cosponsors in the Senate, including Sens. Orrin Hatch (UT), Dean Heller (NV), Dan Sullivan (AK), and Steve Daines (MT).


Media:

Summary by Eric Revell

(Photo Credit: BLMOregon via Flickr / Creative Commons)

AKA

Bureau of Land Management Headquarters Relocation Act

Official Title

A bill to require the Secretary of the Interior to develop a strategy to relocate the headquarters of the Bureau of Land Management from Washington, DC, to a western State in a manner that will save the maximum amount of taxpayer money practicable, and for other purposes.

    This bill, if passed, could not only save so much money but it could also allow for better decision making on the BLM's part. Let's relocate the BLM's office to where most of their area focus is! Many have even proposed it be in Grand Junction Colorado which would be great for this area!
    Like (42)
    Follow
    Share
    This is a pointless bill. The BLM has plenty of regional offices in Western states. BLM headquarters should be in Washington D.C. because that’s where all the policymaking is happening. This bill is just a distraction and moving the HQ will be a waste of money.
    Like (70)
    Follow
    Share
    Where they’re located doesn’t have anything to do with the decision making process. This is a complete waste of money.
    Like (52)
    Follow
    Share
    The HQs should be in Washington DC because that is where the policy decisions are made.
    Like (26)
    Follow
    Share
    Why? In the 1960s this might’ve been a good idea when the Internet didn’t make communication nearly instantaneous, but in the modern world there’s literally no point. there are lots of branch offices and that’s fine. The Bureau of land management needs people in DC to do the political work.
    Like (18)
    Follow
    Share
    It wasn’t until Teddy Roosevelt went west, to engage in the cattle business, that he had his first real contact with Native Americans. It changed his opinion and shifted his involvement with them. It was the “eyes on” first hand experience that influenced his decisions from those first encounters. Same holds true for land management bureaucrats. Eyes and hands on the land they’re charged with managing is important.
    Like (15)
    Follow
    Share
    Get the bureaucrats out of the swamp, and with the people who write their paychecks, and who are directly affected by their decisions.
    Like (12)
    Follow
    Share
    This would do nothing but cost taxpayers money. First, less than 25% of BLM employees work in DC. Then the ones that do are primarily interacting with other government agencies, Congress, and the President and would need to stay, thus creating a secondary "headquarters." This would just add cost to running the BLM while making it less efficient and effective.
    Like (10)
    Follow
    Share
    This seems like a waste of time and resources. Creating satellite offices if those don’t already exist makes sense, but the Bureau should be close to the rest of policy-makers.
    Like (9)
    Follow
    Share
    This is absurd. As though we are living in the 1800s and need to send telegrams via railroad to the western frontier. The BLM needs to maintain a DC office for budget talks, and this appears to be a ploy to weaken the agency in this regard.
    Like (7)
    Follow
    Share
    waste of money, get rid of zinke instead
    Like (6)
    Follow
    Share
    SB 1007 is about disruption and distraction. Physically moving the BLM headquarters would be daunting, and the disruption to the people who work there, and their families, is unwarranted. The bureau has many satellite offices in the west. The HQ is fine where it is.
    Like (5)
    Follow
    Share
    The distance from Washington would lessen their ability to influence policy makers.
    Like (5)
    Follow
    Share
    No Constitutional authority for the BLM it needs to be down sized to an advisory capacity and have States manage their own public lands instead of federal bureaucrats in DC that are out of touch with the land their tasked to manage, it will save a lot of money and the State will be better stuarts and in touch with the land so it can be enjoyed more by people and wildlife.
    Like (5)
    Follow
    Share
    State Governments should have the right to decide individually. Currently, the federal government seeks to control the people in ways that diminish political and civil liberties. 👺They are like a greedy old landlords who won't fix anything, don't provide protection (like smoke alarms and sprinklers) and then raise the rent sky high. 🤢Personally, I do NOT want Trump or any of his crooks anywhere near my state. They are doing enough damage from where they are. 👺Besides, we all know the federal government's headquarters is in Kansas, home to the Koch brothers.
    Like (5)
    Follow
    Share
    No, the government should be centrally located. This is an attempt to decentralize our gov't. #Resist
    Like (5)
    Follow
    Share
    Cost of move returns no benefit
    Like (5)
    Follow
    Share
    No! Keep it where it is. This is an attempted power grab by Repugnacants in the West.
    Like (5)
    Follow
    Share
    Land management should be left up to the states. What does Washington know? The constitution gave no such authority to the federal government.
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    The ranchers in the western states would then have influence and pressure to put on the Bureau and they have too much influence now!
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    MORE