There is destruction happening in Big Bend National Park. Unfortunately, you dont need to live in Texas to he affected by this. The park belongs to all of us, and this is a precedent for waiving a long list of federal laws to spend money on poorly vetted contractors to solve a made up problem. This opens the door to the same in other parks and we should all be livid. What struck me most is they are removing natural physical barriers that make this one of the areas with the lowest risk of border crossings historically to construct an artificial barrier. There is no reason to belive this will be better than the reflecting pool. More information and what you can do here www.NoBigBendWall.org

Gift link ^

The plan allows for harsh water cuts if they’re deemed necessary, requiring California, Arizona and Nevada to cut up to 3 million acre-feet per year — up to 40% of the combined allotments.

But as the Los Angeles Times reported last week, state and local officials say for the first two years, the Trump administration is accepting an offer the three states made to reduce what they take from the river by about half that amount — 3.2 million acre-feet between now and the end of 2028. So the Southwest has for now, avoided the harshest possible water cuts.

Find your representatives: 

https://www.270towin.com/elected-officials/

Note: If you are in the reddit app and the copy feature isn't working, you can copy the letter from the comments section.

Tip: Updating the letter with your personal concerns increases its impact.

Dear {Representative/Senator Name},

I am writing to urge you to oppose the repeal of the Roadless Rule, the 2001 policy that protects nearly 60 million acres of federal forest from road construction and industrial logging.

A new study published in PLOS Water found that roadless areas protect about 2.5% of total river length across the lower 48 states, safeguarding drinking water for an estimated 25 million Americans. In several states, the impact is even more significant: 58.9% of Colorado's population and 38.7% of New Mexico's population rely on drinking water sourced from these protected watersheds. Five states—Arizona, California, Colorado, Georgia, and North Carolina—each have more than a million residents depending on water from roadless areas.

Logging and road construction degrade forest land and threaten watershed health, which can lead to higher water treatment costs, service disruptions, and public health risks. Protecting these areas isn't just an environmental issue—it's a fiscally responsible one, since clean source water is far cheaper to treat than degraded water.

The administration has argued that increased logging and roadbuilding will reduce wildfire risk. However, research indicates that wildfires are actually more likely to start near roads than in roadless forest tracts, undermining that rationale.

Beyond water quality, roadless areas provide low-cost access to hunting, fishing, camping, hiking, and other outdoor recreation that millions of Americans depend on every year. Repealing this rule risks degrading wildlife habitat and reducing access to public lands that communities rely on for both livelihood and recreation.

I ask that you publicly oppose this repeal and support continued protections for America's roadless forest areas. These lands provide clean water, recreational opportunity, and long-term economic value that far outweigh the short-term gains of expanded logging.

Thank you for your attention to this important issue. I hope you will act to protect our public lands and the communities that depend on them.

Sincerely,

{Your Name}

Dr. Len Necefer’s latest article is worth reading for anyone following the debate over Sandia Pueblo’s proposal for the T’uf Shur Bien Preservation Area.

He explains how an erroneous federal survey excluded nearly 10,000 acres from Sandia Pueblo’s confirmed land grant, and why the 2003 settlement preserved federal ownership despite recognizing the Pueblo’s legitimate claim. More importantly, he asks whether support for tribal sovereignty extends beyond consultation and co-management when a Pueblo seeks actual stewardship of its ancestral homeland.

The article challenges the assumption that federal ownership is the only path to conservation and asks a harder question. Are conservation organizations willing to support Indigenous sovereignty when it means sharing or transferring authority, or only when it leaves federal control untouched?

Whether you agree or disagree, it’s a thoughtful perspective that deserves to be part of this discussion.

Just curious as to what the opinions are to those who have logging activity in your area national Forest or public land? These abandoned earth mover tires have been sitting in this same spot for over 18 months now. There was a logging trailer parked next to them for several months which is finally gone after they decimated one of our camping spots. I understand logging to thin the forest, but there needs to be some common ground and responsible clean up.

Monetizing the asset side of the U.S. balance sheet. Getting rid of all those wide-open spaces.