Jason Chaffetz’s Congressional Tenure Is Over — Let H.R. 622 Die Along With It.

It’s time to end the misguided congressional effort to render selected federal agents ineffective.

Michael Johnson
Jul 23, 2017 · 21 min read
Photo Credit: Craig Kohlruss Fresno Bee file photo

National Forests and other public lands — they are for everyone, right? As a public land advocate myself, I am always quick to proclaim an ardent “Yes!” However in recent years, there has been a more sinister societal element utilizing America’s dense and remote public lands and forests. Cartels have transformed many of the national forests in the American West into a hotbed of illicit marijuana grows.

When I first became aware of this issue, I pictured small backyard gardener-types looking to cultivate a few plants to use recreationally. What I learned is that in reality, the problem is much, much larger — industrial scale larger. Upwards of eighty percent of illegal pot grows destroyed by authorities in California alone are located on federal public lands. Josh Harkinson of Mother Jones describes it perfectly:

The problem has also turned deadly. In 2005, law enforcement officers engaged in a fatal shootout with armed marijuana growers at a nature preserve outside of San Jose, California. One officer was shot through both legs and one suspect was killed. But the problems stemming from illicit grows on public lands do not end with gunfights and booby-traps; there is also a steep environmental price thanks to the toxic fertilizers and pesticides grows utilize to ensure strong yields.

So why is this issue of particular pertinence now? After all, there have been illegal pot grows on public lands for decades. This issue matters now more than ever because of H.R. 622. Former Representative Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, introduced the Local Enforcement for Local Lands Act, a bill that strips the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) of law enforcement authority. The potential impact of this legislation is enormous considering that nearly 70% of federal public lands in the United States fall under the jurisdiction of the USFS and BLM, respectively.

The following provides a general background of the issue of illicit marijuana grows on federal public lands; the environmental effects that result from those grows; and an argument against removing federal law enforcement authority on USFS and BLM lands. My argument can be summed up relatively simply: advocating for less federal law enforcement authority on federal public lands is not only bad policy, it embodies the very worst form of reckless political pandering.


Photo Credit: marijuanapolitics.com

There’s (Green) Gold in Them Thar’ Hills

Imagine the typical national forest in western United States — towering pines covering the sides of mountains expanding out for what seems like infinity; winding fire roads meandering throughout otherwise impenetrable wilderness; babbling streams (depending on the time of year, of course); a chorus of birds calling and insects buzzing about. Picture yourself as one of the millions of Americans who visit one of those forests. You park in a small gravel lot off of a fire road, you pull on your hiking boots and don your day pack, check your trail map once again, and then you begin your trek. Along the trail you take in the scenic beauty and bask in the sensory magic of the forest. You may hike mile after mile, taking in your surroundings, all the while never cognizant that perhaps just a few hundred yards off the trail at any point of your journey stands a trespass grow containing millions of dollars worth of illicit pot plants.

While that might sound like an introduction to an oddball Bill Bryson essay, it is in fact more commonplace than many Americans may believe. Each year billions upon billions of dollars worth of illicit pot is seized and destroyed on public lands. Yes, those figures are accurate and underscore the fact that with approximately $16.7 billion in total sales, marijuana is California’s largest cash crop.

The outlandish numbers continue to grow when one looks to the amount of marijuana discovered and confiscated on public lands. It is important to remember that only a small fraction of illegal marijuana grows are ever discovered and eradicated, meaning there are still billions of dollars worth of plants that are grown, harvested, and sold without ever attracting the attention of law enforcement.

To help illustrate just what we are discussing, here are just a few examples of the amount of money going up in smoke in America’s national forests and other public lands. In 2008, more than 3.1 million plants with an estimated street value of $12.4 billion were seized from national forests. In a three-month span in 2010, law enforcement agencies destroyed more than $253 million worth of plants on public lands in Los Angeles County alone. The San Jose raid I mentioned earlier resulted in the seizure of more than 22,000 plants with an estimated value of $88 million. Another California raid netted more than $8 million worth of marijuana plants. Raids like these are more commonplace as USFS and BLM partner with local police and other federal agencies to tackle the Western pandemic of trespass grows. With resources stretched thin, cross-agency partnerships are becoming the norm when addressing the problem of illicit pot on public lands.

One such collaboration was Operation Mountain Sweep in the summer of 2012. Federal and state law enforcement agencies, under the direction of the Department of Justice, raided dozens of trespass grows in Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and Washington. Over the course of the operation, police located and destroyed more than 500,000 plants with an estimated street value of $1.6 billion. Considering the sheer scale of the type of trespass grows authorities continue to discover and destroy, it is not an unreasonable assumption that endeavors like Operation Mountain Sweep will likely become standard elements of efforts to tackle the issue of illegal pot on America’s public lands.

The staggering amounts of money involved in illicit grows tends to lead people to, and forgive the cliché, miss the forest for the trees. While billions of dollars worth of confiscated pot makes for fetching headlines, perhaps the real issue at play is that of the environmental degradation that accompanies this business. As we know all too well, short of oilrig explosions or massive tankers running aground resulting in oiled sea birds, environmental disasters rarely garner the coverage that crime and money attract. In recent years though, more and more journalists are catching on to the story and starting to tell the world of the havoc being loosed upon our public lands.


Photo Credit: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Hiking Boots and HAZMAT Suits

The environmental damage from illicit marijuana operations in California is getting worse. Experts say illegal growers are killing wildlife by diverting water from streams, using pesticides, fertilizers and poisons. With the legalization of recreational marijuana, some law enforcement agencies fear the problem will only get worse — especially on National Forest land.

Those who study the physical impact of illegal marijuana grows on public lands essentially share the same general public service announcement: Illicit pot is poisoning our forests. I use the term poison deliberately — our national forests and other public lands that are used to host these grow sites are quite literally being laced with toxic chemicals and other poisons as a part of the cultivation process.

The folks executing these grows certainly are not the eco-friendly organic farming hippies that may come to mind when discussing Northern California pot cultivation in the abstract. The folks responsible for this environmental crisis are not back-to-the-landers that toil in the fields to the groovy guitar riffs of Jerry Garcia or Phish. Most federal law enforcement agencies believe that the people who are carrying out the toxic grows in national forests are all too often foot soldiers of the Mexican cartels, though that in and of itself can at times be difficult to prove.

One thing that is clearly evident from the state of the grow sites — these ‘farmers’ are certainly not cut from the sustainable, fair trade cloth of eco-consciousness. Rick Fleming, a civilian who partners with federal agencies to help organize volunteer efforts to clean up illicit grow sites, recalled being struck by the sheer amount of rubbish left behind. Grow tenders can be on-site for weeks on end during the cultivation process, often camping at the sites to ensure their protection from interference. Those residential tenders bring with them general implements commonly found in any car camping kit. “Among the waste typically hauled out: tents, sleeping bags, stoves, propane tanks, clothing, food packages, even discarded weapons.”

Although litterbugs are certainly leaving a negative mark in national forests, the byproducts of the actual agricultural activities are proving to be most harmful. As with above-board crop cultivation, illegal pot growers use toxicants such as fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides to ensure the best crop yield. The problem with the illegal grows is that the grow tenders are using those chemicals in extremely high quantities that result in toxic runoff and the poisoning of surrounding wildlife. The amount of toxicants used at illegal grows is staggering. Researchers have identified approximately 50 different chemical agents at grow sites throughout California.

The effects of those toxicants are all-too-often discovered by way of dead forest dwellers, some of which are already endangered species. The damage wrought on those animals is truly horrifying and demonstrates the callousness of the grow tenders.

Growers use the poisons to keep rodents and other animals from eating the sugar-rich sprouting plants, from gnawing on irrigation tubing, and from invading their campsites in search of food. Acute rodenticides cause neurological damage and internal bleeding. Animals literally drown in their own blood or stumble around until they’re eaten themselves, passing the poison up the food chain to predators like owls and fishers.

Growers bait open tuna cans with pesticides, which are often flavored like meat or peanut butter, or string up poisoned hot dogs on fishhooks. People have found bears, foxes, vultures, and deer with chemicals from grow sites in their bodies. One study of barred owls (Strix varia) in the Pacific Northwest found that 80 percent of the birds tested positive. And for every animal found, there are probably dozens more in a similar condition.

Humans are also falling victim to the effects of the toxicants found at illegal grow sites with increasing frequency. Simply being present in a grow treated with pesticides or similar chemicals can result in law enforcement agents experiencing headaches and lethargy. Chemicals that are banned in the U.S. are also turning up at illicit grow sites. One such agent is carbofuran — exposure to which can result in “nausea, blurred vision, convulsions, spontaneous abortions, and death.”

Dr. Mourad Gabriel, a civilian who partners with law enforcement agencies to study the environmental impacts of the illegal grows, even resorts to regular blood testing for members of his team to screen for potential poisoning from the various toxicants. The high probability of exposure to harmful chemical agents means that law enforcement must take extra precautionary measures before entering and inspecting grow sites to ensure their safety. The result is longer preparation times and additional training in the safe handling of dangerous substances. One of Dr. Gabriel’s experiences demonstrates just how important those precautions are:

“At one site Gabriel was inspecting an unfamiliar container full of aluminum phosphide, a poisonous powder used to kill rodents and insects. It had gasified and built up pressure in the heat of the sun. When he touched it, it exploded in his face. Luckily he was wearing a HAZMAT respirator.”

The effects of harmful chemical agents certainly are not felt only on land. Runoff from irrigation at the grow sites results in the contamination of smaller streams and creeks and eventually leads to the presence of toxicants in the larger and fragile river ecosystems throughout the region. Algal blooms are a common result of that runoff, killing off plant and fish species.

Apart from the clear and present danger of the various toxicants, there are other practices related to the illegal grows that are detrimental to the environment. Water diversion for irrigation also causes major ecological disruptions. Authorities removed more than 18 miles worth of irrigation drip line from Lassen National Forest alone. The sheer scale of the water diversion problem can be hard to comprehend for those of us who are not well versed in the technical details of high country pot cultivation.

“At about 6 gallons of water per plant per day over 150 watering days, a trespass grow site with 10,000 plants diverts 60,000 gallons of water per day, or 9 million gallons in a season.

If that failed to paint a clear picture for you, consider the following estimation from Dr. Gabriel:

“The 1.1 million illegal pot plants removed in California in 2016 would have used somewhere around 1.3 billion [sic] gallons of water — as much as 10,000 average California households do in a year.”

For a state like California, which is naturally drought-prone, water diversions for trespass grows easily dry up small streams resulting in the total disruption of the larger forest ecosystem. Illegal diversions also result in less water available for legitimate agricultural activities. Major agricultural activities in California compete with illegal pot grows for crucial water supplies. One such crop is the almond. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife estimates that trespass grows use the same amount of water per square mile as the almond orchards. Such diversions also result in harm to others who have legal rights of water utilization under California’s prior appropriation system of water rights. What results is essentially theft, but a form of theft that leaves the victims without any sort of legal recourse.

The impact of water diversion is also felt far from the depths of national forests. By drying up smaller tributary streams, reduced water flows impact major habitat conservation projects such as that of the Coho salmon in Humboldt County’s Mattole River watershed. In terms of costs of natural ecosystem services, the damage to such habitat is staggering, but the costs are also steep in monetary terms — often to the tune of millions of dollars in wasted conservation infrastructure development.

As the number of trespass grows on America’s public lands continues to increase, so too will the harmful effects of those practices on the physical environment. In the very places set aside for sustainable provision of various natural resources and recreational enjoyment by all Americans, criminals are subjecting protected lands to levels of degradation that are unimaginable outside of an industrial extraction context. Legalization efforts are but one piece in solving the puzzle of illegal grows on public lands. Another key element in that solution is the presence of law enforcement officers in and around those protected lands to help deter such detrimental illicit agricultural activities.


Photo Credit: Jonathan Ernst — Reuters

H.R. 622 : A Portrait of Modern Sagebrushism

Now that the environmental impacts of trespass grows have been laid out, this is a good point to return to the big picture — to get back to looking at this issue from 30,000 feet. America’s national forests and other public lands are, and have been for quite some time, ground zero for illegal marijuana grows. I have shown how those illicit activities have dire consequences both to the human and natural environments inside and outside of the confines of national forests and other public lands.

So what, you may ask, does illegal pot cultivation in national forests have to do with the proposed bill to curb law enforcement authority for the USFS and BLM? The answer is a relatively simple one: by curbing the ability of the USFS and BLM to exercise law enforcement authority on public lands, H.R. 622 effectively renders impotent two major partners in any efforts to combat the very real problem of illegal marijuana grows.

Perhaps what is most peculiar about H.R. 622 is its focus on two specific federal agencies — the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management — both of which are referred to as “covered law enforcement agencies.” No other federal agencies are included. In fact, there is a provision in the bill that expressly insulates other federal agencies from falling victim to the proposed elimination of law enforcement authority. H.R. 622 even includes a provision that expressly allows for the jurisdiction of local and state law enforcement jurisdiction on federal lands while simultaneously erasing the jurisdiction of the very agencies tasked with administering and managing massive swathes of federal public lands.

Critics of the bill focus on the fact that the two particular agencies targeted by the legislation are the same agencies that are the focus of ire and vitriol by the modern Sagebrush Rebellion movement — USFS and BLM. In an article posted in early February, Outside Magazine’s Leah Sottile offered the following evaluation of the proposed bill: “What Chaffetz and friends are proposing with 622…could have been written by Ammon Bundy himself: get the enforcement of public lands out of the hands of the feds, and into the hands of locals.”

Ammon Bundy is the son of noted Sagebrush firebrand Cliven Bundy. In January 2016, Ammon Bundy and his brother Ryan Bundy, along with a contingent of their armed supporters, seized and occupied the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon. The Bundys and their cohorts overtook the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)-managed refuge initially to protest federal land management policies as well as the treatment of local ranchers convicted of federal land arson. The armed occupation lasted forty days and ended with one of the armed occupants killed by an Oregon State Police officer, the arrest of the Bundys, and three others arrested by federal agents. Bundy has publicly advocated local control as a means to “get the logger back to logging, to get the rancher back to ranching, to get the miner back to mining.” (Though it is worth noting that federal lands under the management of BLM and USFS are multiuse lands that are regularly opened up to mining and other sorts of extractive exploitation per the organic acts of each federal agency.)

Mr. Chaffetz, on the other hand, pointed to tensions between locals and federal agents as the motivation for his efforts to eliminate law enforcement jurisdiction for BLM and USFS. Mr. Chaffetz has offered the following statements regarding his proposed bill: “This legislation will help deescalate conflicts between law enforcement and local residents while improving transparency and accountability.” Policing functions are a “distraction” for BLM and Forest Service employees, the statement said. “This is a win all around.”For all of Mr. Chaffetz’s posturing on the issue, he offered little explanation as to why he limited his rhetoric to the USFS and the BLM.

Thinking about the issue critically quickly offers helpful insight into the issue: other federal law enforcement agencies such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms and Explosives (ATF), and the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) all manage their missions without administration of federal public lands and thus pose little to no threat to the political supporters of folks like Mr. Chaffetz — namely western ranchers, loggers, and miners. With the context growing somewhat clearer, let us once again tackle the question as to why Chaffetz focused his efforts on BLM and USFS? The answer seems more in-focus now: having been elected by libertarian-leaning ranchers and loggers, stripping the law enforcement powers from BLM and USFS would ease the pressures faced by ranchers and loggers who find themselves delinquent in payment of federal grazing fees (administered by BLM) or tend to take timber that may be just inside boundaries of national forests (USFS). By neutralizing the authority of BLM and USFS, Mr. Chaffetz practically gave carte blanche to those who use federal lands for their livelihoods to do so without paying for it and eliminating the consequences for those actions.

That of course is one theory of the legislation, albeit the one I find most plausible and convincing. Political motivations aside, there is still a valid question that is yet to be answered — if USFS and BLM are stripped of their law enforcement authority, what impact will that have on efforts to battle trespass grows on public lands?


Photo Credit: William Campbell via Getty Images

Strange Bedfellows a Poison Pill for H.R. 622?

The cooperative model of law enforcement is at the heart of the Department of the Interior’s approach to battling criminal activities on America’s public lands. In her official written testimony presented before the 112th Congress, then-Deputy Assistant Secretary for Law Enforcement, Security and Emergency Management for the Department of the Interior (DOI) Kim Thorsen offered the following statement:

“Currently, I [chair] the Public Lands Drug Coordinating Committee (PLDCC) at the Office of the National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP)[…] This group meets to develop strategies for working with each other and our state and local partners to effectively utilize limited resources to combat the problem of cultivation of marijuana on our public lands […]The DOI is committed to accomplishing its mission, and is working with our other federal, state, and local partners in continuing to pursue cooperative strategies that will utilize resources more efficiently, provide for successful investigations, and support prosecutions that will hasten the decline of this blight on our public lands.”

Clearly the mission of the BLM is to collaborate with other agencies at the local, state, and federal levels to combat the illicit marijuana cultivation problem on public lands. USFS is also committed to partnering with law enforcement agencies of all levels to combat the same issue. Considering that the challenge of countering trespass grows on public lands continues to escalate in intensity, it seems odd to attempt to reign in federal law enforcement authority for the two agencies that manage and administer the vast majority of federal public lands in the United States.

Supporters of the bill say that authority will be transferred to state and local law enforcement agencies. But even with the added resources of BLM and USFS rangers, law enforcement agencies struggle to find the necessary manpower to take on the illegal grows.

Dozens of collaborative efforts have opened up federal resources held by BLM and USFS for use by state and local agencies. Example after example exists of major law enforcement offensives that were made possible by joining forces between local, state, and federal agencies. Thus it logically follows that removal of BLM and USFS from those collaborative efforts would deal a massive blow to the potential for law enforcement to mount a real and effective campaign to quell the growing issue of trespass grows on federal lands.

Opposition to H.R. 622 also comes from the law enforcement community itself, which actively recognizes that removing such powers from BLM and USFS is reckless and irresponsible. In its official letter to former representative Chaffetz expressing its opposition to the bill, the Federal Law Enforcement Officer’s Association offered the following damning statement:

Federal law enforcement officers are free from political pressures, whereas sheriffs are political entities. Conflicting priorities with their local constituents could adversely affect their ability to protect our national treasures. Rather than objectively enforcing laws, rules, and regulations pertaining to our public lands, you may have some sheriffs carrying out their own personal agendas or the agendas of their constituents.

Forest Service and BLM officers routinely handle highly complex cases pertaining to archaeological resources, timber theft, international drug trafficking, illegal immigration, wildlife poaching, and catastrophic wildfires. These investigations often span numerous jurisdictions from counties, to states, and even internationally. Local law enforcement simply lacks the authority and resources to investigate such broad cases […]Congress should be prioritizing its resources towards strengthening the law enforcement functions of both these agencies rather than dismantling them.

This bill leads one to believe that state and local law enforcement authorities are “more rooted” in the local community, and therefore better suited to enforce federal laws. On the contrary, Forest Service and BLM officers are often stationed in remote and sparsely populated communities where local law enforcement has minimal, if any, officers assigned. The fact is that land management law enforcement officers have an extremely low rate of turnover and transfer. These officers embark on a lifelong career and become valuable assets to their local communities. To suggest that Forest Service and BLM officers have difficulties working with local law enforcement is simply not true. Many of these agency’s personnel hold deputizations [sic] from their local sheriff’s to assist in times of need.

As conservation groups, environmentalists, and law enforcement veterans begin to align in opposition to H.R. 622, it appears as though this issue provides fertile ground for a ‘Baptists and bootleggers’ coalition. However this is not the first instance of one of Mr. Chaffetz’s bills incurring the ire of groups with seemingly divergent political positions.

H.R. 622’s sister legislation, H.R. 621 — a bill that sought to provide for the sale of millions of acres of federal public lands — was pulled from consideration in the House of Representatives after a sharp public backlash orchestrated by conservation and hunter’s rights groups. Critics of H.R. 621 protested at various town hall events hosted by Mr. Chaffetz, along with other western Republican members of congress who supported the bill.

Environmental and conservation groups decried what they saw as a late Christmas gift to the extractive industries to open up public lands for exploitation, while sportsmen’s groups denounced what they interpreted as an assault on the ability of Americans to enjoy recreational opportunities, including hunting, on public lands. After rowdy demonstrations and widespread, pointed pressure on various web platforms from various citizen and interest groups, including the use of a specific tag on social media (#keepitpublic), Mr. Chaffetz bowed to public pressure and withdrew H.R. 621.

The battle over H.R. 621, and the subsequent victory won by its opposition, serves as a model for those determined to defeat H.R. 622. Once again, environmental and conservation groups are looking to team up with groups like law enforcement advocacy groups to strike the death blow to H.R. 622. However, the issue of stripping law enforcement authority from BLM and Forest Service rangers is hardly as sensational as the federal government seeking to divest itself of millions of acres of public lands available to enjoyment by all Americans. One can easily imagine an opposition campaign focused on the element of recreational areas being left unpatrolled and thus made less safe and subject to exploitation by criminal elements and other unseemly types.

As outdoor recreation continues to grow in popularity in the United States, perhaps the idea of vast swathes of American wilderness going un-policed will serve as a proverbial wake up call to all of those who utilize those areas for enjoyment who may otherwise be unaware of the objective of H.R. 622. Whatever the rallying cry, the quick death of H.R. 621 can certainly be a model for opponents of H.R. 622 to put the issue to rest, at least for the current congress.


Photo Credit: Wikipedia Commons

Wanted: Congressional Courage

When former representative Jason Chaffetz introduced his bills regarding public lands earlier this year, what followed was a renewed fight over the future of federal lands across the United States. Lauded by supporters as a method by which to provide for more control over public lands at the local level, many of Mr. Chaffetz’s supporters see H.R. 622 as just another step in their long march to slowly remove federal authority over western lands. Opponents, including myself, largely see the bill as a thinly veiled attempt to grab public lands and transfer them to states, only to be later sold off to the highest bidder when state budgets get tight and extractive industries promise big payouts.

One thing that seems clear is that there are very serious ongoing criminal issues happening on America’s public lands. I have offered the worsening problem of illicit marijuana cultivation on public lands as one but issue by which to frame the debate over the role the federal government should play in policing public land. I have laid out the collateral issues of environmental damage that accompanies illegal pot grows, as well as the more direct results of volatile conditions faced by law enforcement officers when patrolling these far reaching areas of wilderness. By shedding light on the issue of illicit marijuana growth, I have sought to bring into focus just one of many issues that will likely be exacerbated should two crucial partners in public land law enforcement — USFS and BLM — be removed from the fight to keep the peace and enforce laws on federal lands.

As federal agents partner with state and local officials to combat the blight of cartel activity on public lands, and do so with resources that are under increasing stress and pressure, there are senior members of congress seeking to make their fight even harder, and likely more dangerous, simply to gain political points with their supporters who are displeased with federal administration of lands that belong to all Americans.

Since Mr. Chaffetz resigned from congress this summer, the responsibility now falls to the bill’s seven cosponsors to withdraw H.R. 622 out of respect for the federal law enforcement agents that keep millions of acres in their home districts safe. Should they wish to carry the mantle of Sagebrush politics further, they can do so by openly advocating for the land transfer agenda and wage that battle in the court of public opinion and the democratic process. But to vilify federal agents — who go out each and every shift, often alone, into wilderness areas to ensure law and order on lands that belong to all Americans — so they can proclaim their ‘local is best’ political ideology to their constituents, seems to be the biggest and most reckless disservice perpetrated by modern Sagebrushers in the course of their congressional careers.

Belief that federal public lands close to one’s home are best administered by local entities is valid. However the course of action taken by Mr. Chaffetz and the cosponsors of H.R. 622 lacks any sense of responsibility or righteousness. It is an exercise in political pandering that has reached a fevered pitch in recent years for those in the land transfer movement.

Having worked with the men and women of the USFS, and having interacted with BLM rangers as one who enjoys recreating on public lands, I have enormous respect for the work they do in keeping our lands not only safe from crime, but also safe from environmental harm. Those people wear the uniform with distinction and should be commended for the work they do in ensuring the protection of the lands that belong to all of us as Americans.

While Mr. Chaffetz’s congressional tenure has reached the end of the line, H.R. 622 remains an active threat to the ability of federal law enforcement agencies to keep our public lands safe. The duty now falls to the cosponsors of the bill to do what Mr. Chaffetz lacked the political courage to do — kill H.R. 622 once and for all. At a time when congress is mired in dysfunction and deadlock, it would be a welcome breath of fresh air to see public servants act responsibly and put an end to the wholly reckless and dangerous nightmare that is the Local Enforcement for Local Lands Act.

Representatives Stewart, Love, LaMalfa, Amodei, McClintock, Gosar, and Smith — it’s your move.

Michael Johnson

Written by

Advocate for the environment. Writer. Current affairs junkie. Juris Doctor (University of Kentucky ‘17).

Welcome to a place where words matter. On Medium, smart voices and original ideas take center stage - with no ads in sight. Watch
Follow all the topics you care about, and we’ll deliver the best stories for you to your homepage and inbox. Explore
Get unlimited access to the best stories on Medium — and support writers while you’re at it. Just $5/month. Upgrade