This week, the U.S. House Natural Resources Committee is considering overhauling Biden-era restrictions on oil and gas leasing which could affect Utah but new polling, released by the Republican polling firm New Bridge Strategies, showed most Utahns are opposed to proposals to green-light more drilling.
The Bureau of Land Management recently announced it will no longer prepare environmental impact reports for more than 3,200 oil and gas leases across the western U.S. President Donald Trump has made it a priority to unleash American energy and signed an executive order to encourage more development on public lands.
Lori Weigel, principal at New Bridge Strategies, said Utah voters consider issues such as clean air and water, conservation, wildlife and recreation more important, as only 42% of Utahns said they think providing land for oil and gas development is important.
"We saw just overwhelming agreement with this idea that, again taking 'multiple use,' noting that we need to make sure that it's really held up in terms of how decisions are made regarding our national public lands," Weigel reported.
The BLM's "multiple-use doctrine" requires the agency to balance conservation and extraction on public lands, but is being targeted by the White House. The poll found more than seven in 10 Utah voters believe drilling should be limited to areas where there's "high likelihood" of producing oil and gas.
David Willms, associate vice president of public lands for the National Wildlife Federation, said as policymakers push to expand energy production, poll data show voters do not want to reduce bonding rates for energy developers.
"So that industry and not taxpayers are paying for cleanup after development," Willms explained. "This really is a timely discussion, and the results of this polling couldn't be more timely and applicable."
Russell Kuhlman, executive director of Utah's neighboring Nevada Wildlife Federation, said habitat and wildlife populations are showing "ignoring conservation, sustainability and sound science have a price."
"That is why we can no longer prioritize these activities that do not make sense on our public lands, while letting our wildlife and our habitat degrade and assume everything will be there for future generations," Kuhlman contended.
