Advertisement

Conclusion

  • Robert E. Forbis Jr.
Chapter

Abstract

Legal protection of the mineral estate is disproportionate to the legal protection of the surface estate. Enforcement of the mineral estate’s dominance over the surface estate is furthered as federal regulations guide split-estate energy development. This body of federal law and regulation guide the BLM’s management and oversight of split-estate energy development. It establishes the federal government’s prevailing interest in developing the federally owned mineral estate. This body of law and regulation also mandates the BLM protect the government’s interest in developing the mineral estate. It is a mandate that reflects the intent of government to serve the public welfare by protecting its ability to provide energy resources to the nation. Findings indicate that the government’s legal and regulatory protection and development interests in split-estate energy resources contradict fundamental principles of property ownership and environmental stewardship. The antiquated nature of federal law and regulation controlling the development of split-estate energy resources are at odds with the legal, political, economic, and technological realities of modern-day domestic energy development. The shared understanding expressed by government, energy, and ranching officials supports this conclusion. Development of a non-traditional energy resource would not have been possible without a “perfect storm” of legal, political, economic, and technological conditions all coming together within a relatively short period of time. These events established the conditions for political upheaval in the BLM’s land-use subgovernment.

Keywords

Bureau of Land Management Department of Interior Bureaucracy Split-estate energy development Federal law Federal regulation Executive power Subgovernment Natural Resource Policy 

References

  1. Cawley, R. M. (1993). Federal land western anger: The sagebrush rebellion and environmental politics. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press.Google Scholar
  2. Clarke J. N. & McCool, D. C. (1996). Staking out the terrain: Power and performance among natural resource agencies (2nd ed.). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  3. Culhane, P. J. (1981). Public lands politics: Interest group influence on the forest service and the bureau of land management. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press for Resources for the Future.Google Scholar
  4. Davis, D. H. (1997). Energy on federal lands. In C. Davis (Ed.), Western public lands and environmental politics (pp.141-168). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  5. Dickson, J. (2010, January 8). Oil and gas leasing reforms arrive: Our efforts have paid off!. Press release. Retrieved from http://wilderness.org/content/oil-and-gas-leasing-reforms.
  6. Donahue, D. L. (1999). The western range revisited: Removing livestock from public lands to conserve native biodiversity. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press.Google Scholar
  7. Foss, P. O. (1960). Politics and grass: The administration of grazing on the public domain. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press.Google Scholar
  8. Herrell, T. (2009). Deputy State Director of Minerals and Lands New Mexico Bureau of Land Management. -Interview Conducted: May 20, 2009; Albuquerque, NM.Google Scholar
  9. Klyza, C. M. (1996). Who controls public lands?: Mining, forestry, and grazing politics 1870-1990. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
  10. Knight, R. L., Gilgert W. C., & Marston, E. (Eds.). (2002). Ranching west of the 100th meridian: Culture, ecology, and economics. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  11. McCool, D. C. (1989). Subgovernments and the impact of policy fragmentation and accommodation. Policy Studies Review, 8(4), 264–287.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.15411338.1988.tb01101.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. McCool, D. C. (1990). Subgovernments as determinants of political viability. Political Science Quarterly, 105(2), 269–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. McCool, D. C. (1995). Public policy theories, models, and concepts: An anthology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  14. McCool, D. C. (1998). The subsystem family of concepts: A critique and proposal. Political Research Quarterly, 51(2), 551–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Merrill, K. R. (2002). Public lands and political meaning: Ranchers, the government, and the property between them. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  16. Nie, M. (2008). The governance of western public lands. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
  17. Rust, L. (2009). Deputy State Director of Minerals and Lands Colorado Bureau of Land Management. -Interview Conducted: May 19, 2009; Denver, CO.Google Scholar
  18. Smith, Z. A. & Freemuth, J. C. (Eds.). (2007). Environmental politics and policy in the west: revised edition. Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado.Google Scholar
  19. Starrs, P. F. (1998). Let the cowboy ride: Cattle ranching in the American west. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Unnamed (2009). Former Senior Department of Interior Political Appointee under former President George W. Bush. -Interview Conducted: May 26, 2009; Salt Lake City, UTGoogle Scholar
  21. Vincent, John (2009). Legal Counsel to the Landowners Association of Wyoming (LAW), Former Mayor of Riverton, WY. -Interview Conducted: March 16, 2009; Riverton, WYGoogle Scholar
  22. Wilkinson, C. F., (1992). Crossing the next meridian: Land, water, and the future of the West. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert E. Forbis Jr.
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceTexas Tech UniversityLubbockUSA

Personalised recommendations