Introduction
The Department of the Interior, through its Bureau of Land Management, has issued Public Land Order No. 7967, effective December 9, 2025. This order withdraws roughly 760.42 acres of federal lands in San Diego and Imperial Counties, California, from various public uses for a three-year period. The withdrawal supports the Department of the Navy's border security operations and transfers administrative jurisdiction to the Navy. Issued under emergency provisions of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), the action addresses what the order describes as an urgent need to preserve values that could otherwise be lost. This development highlights ongoing federal efforts to manage border lands amid security concerns, drawing on a century-old reservation established for similar protective purposes.
Background and Legal Foundation
The withdrawn lands form a narrow strip along the international border between the United States and Mexico, primarily within the Roosevelt Reservation. Established by Presidential Proclamation No. 758 on May 27, 1907, under President Theodore Roosevelt, this reservation set aside a 60-foot-wide corridor along the border in California, Arizona, and New Mexico to prevent smuggling and ensure border control. The proclamation aimed to keep the area free from private development, reserving it for public uses related to border protection.
Public Land Order 7967 invokes Section 204(e) of FLPMA, enacted in 1976, which allows the Secretary of the Interior to make emergency withdrawals when extraordinary measures are needed to protect resources or values. As stated in the order, 'an emergency situation exists and ... extraordinary measures must be taken to preserve values that would otherwise be lost.' This provision bypasses standard public notice and comment periods required for non-emergency withdrawals, reflecting the perceived immediacy of the situation. Similar emergency actions under FLPMA have been used in the past for environmental protection or national security, such as withdrawals for military testing sites or to safeguard cultural resources.
The order affects lands described in detail across multiple townships and ranges in the San Bernardino Meridian, totaling about 760 acres. These strips are generally 60 feet wide, with minor variations in some sections, and are contiguous to the border. The action withdraws them from settlement, sale, location, and entry under general land laws, including mining, mineral leasing, and geothermal leasing laws, while honoring valid existing rights.
Key Players and Process
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), an agency within the Interior Department, initiated this order, with approval from Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum. The BLM manages over 245 million acres of public lands, including border areas in the Southwest. Jurisdiction transfers to the Department of the Navy, which will use the lands for border security purposes. This interagency shift aligns with broader federal strategies where military branches support civilian border enforcement, as seen in past deployments under operations like Joint Task Force North.
No public input was solicited due to the emergency designation, a point of contention in similar cases. For instance, in Arizona v. Biden (2022), courts examined federal authority over border lands, upholding executive discretion in security matters but emphasizing limits on environmental waivers. Here, the Navy's involvement suggests coordination with U.S. Customs and Border Protection, though the order does not specify operational details.
Implications and Perspectives
In the short term, this withdrawal restricts access to these border strips, potentially affecting local communities, recreation, and resource extraction. Mining claims or leasing interests, if valid and pre-existing, remain protected, but new activities are barred. This could limit economic opportunities in rural San Diego and Imperial Counties, where public lands support agriculture and energy development. Border security advocates view the move as a necessary step to enhance surveillance and infrastructure, addressing issues like illegal crossings and smuggling.
Longer-term implications include the potential for extension. The order allows renewal under FLPMA subsections (c)(1) or (d), which could lead to a 20-year withdrawal if Congress approves or if tied to military needs. Environmental groups, such as the Sierra Club, have historically opposed border-related land actions, arguing they disrupt habitats and migratory corridors without adequate review. In contrast, security-focused organizations like the Federation for American Immigration Reform support such measures, citing data from U.S. Border Patrol on rising encounters.
Legal perspectives vary. Proponents reference precedents like Kleppe v. New Mexico (1976), where the Supreme Court affirmed broad federal authority over public lands. Critics, however, point to cases like California Coastal Commission v. Granite Rock Co. (1987), which limited withdrawals that infringe on state rights, though this order appears confined to federal jurisdiction. The emergency clause may invite challenges under the Administrative Procedure Act for being arbitrary, especially without detailed justification for the 'emergency' label.
Forward-Looking Conclusion
This land withdrawal underscores the federal government's use of emergency powers to prioritize border security on public lands with deep historical roots in protection efforts. Key takeaways include the temporary restriction of 760 acres for Navy use, the transfer of jurisdiction, and reliance on FLPMA's expedited process. Moving forward, stakeholders may monitor for extensions, legal challenges, or shifts in policy under changing administrations. Ongoing debates will likely center on balancing security needs with environmental and economic concerns, potentially influencing broader discussions on federal land management and border strategies.
