Congress Moves to Void Minnesota Land Withdrawal, Potentially Opening Protected Federal Lands to Development

This Joint Resolution aims to immediately cancel a specific regulation issued by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). That regulation, known as Public Land Order No. 7917, was responsible for withdrawing federal lands in Cook, Lake, and Saint Louis Counties, Minnesota, effectively protecting them from certain types of development. If this resolution passes, the BLM’s protective rule will be voided, meaning it will have “no force or effect.”

The Land Grab Reversal: What the Bill Undoes

Think of the original BLM rule as putting a ‘Do Not Disturb’ sign on a chunk of federal land in Minnesota. This action used the agency’s power to temporarily remove the land from the pool available for mining, logging, or other resource extraction, often done to protect watersheds or sensitive ecosystems. This Joint Resolution is essentially Congress tearing up that sign. It uses the Congressional Review Act (CRA), a fast-track process that allows Congress to disapprove of an agency’s final rule. Since the bill specifically targets the BLM’s withdrawal order (88 Fed. Reg. 6308), its effect is immediate and absolute: the land withdrawal is canceled.

Who Feels the Change and Why It Matters

For folks living near these areas—or those who travel there for hiking, camping, or fishing—this change is a big deal. The original withdrawal protected the land, including areas near the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, which is known for its pristine waters and recreational value. By voiding the withdrawal, the bill clears the way for the BLM to potentially lease the land for resource extraction, like copper-nickel mining, which can have significant downstream effects on water quality and local ecosystems. This effectively pits conservation interests against economic development interests.

The Congressional Review Act: A Fast Track to Policy Whiplash

Using the CRA is a powerful move because it allows Congress to overturn a regulation with a simple majority vote in both houses, bypassing the usual Senate filibuster and preventing the agency from issuing a “substantially similar” rule in the future. While the CRA is intended for striking down significant regulatory overreach, here it’s being used to reverse a specific land management decision. This sets a precedent where Congress can quickly override detailed, localized environmental and land-use decisions made by experts at federal agencies. For the average person, this means that policy decisions affecting local environments can shift rapidly based on the political winds in Washington, creating uncertainty for both conservation groups and potential developers.