Search

Public lands in the United States are primarily administered by four federal agencies that enjoy broad management discretion under both Chevron deference from courts and generous statutory mandates. While this discretion can promote flexibility and allow agencies to apply their expertise, deference to agencies is a double-edged sword. It also leads to policy whiplash. Whiplash occurs when agencies quickly reverse course on policy decisions, often in response to changing political tides. It has become ubiquitous in our modern political system, and land management agencies that must balance conflicting land use goals or follow multiple-use mandates are especially vulnerable to these policy swings. In the public lands context, whiplash appears in varied circumstances, from energy leasing on BLM lands, to road construction in National Forests, to snowmobile use in National Parks. This Note argues that frequent policy reversals are not a built-in requirement of democracy. Instead, whiplash harms both environmental and economic interests by making it more difficult to create stable public lands policy. The Note then explores potential solutions. It outlines some legislative options that could help limit whiplash despite current Congressional gridlock. Next, this Note suggests that courts may be able to mitigate policy whiplash. First, courts could make it harder for land management agencies to change their minds. Second, the major questions doctrine has a potential silver lining in this context; it could limit the agency discretion that creates whiplash, if the doctrine applies in the first place. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]