BLM Temporarily Defers Lemhi County's Final Geothermal Parcel!
🚨 WE DID IT!
We have some wonderful news to share with everyone who has been following our fight to protect Lemhi County from the November 17 geothermal lease sale!
Late Thursday night, November 12, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) contacted our attorney, Dusty Parson, to notify him that Parcel ID-2026-11-0056, the last remaining Lemhi County geothermal parcel, has been DEFERRED from the November 17 auction!
Dusty gave us the go-ahead to announce this publicly.
THIS IS A MAJOR VICTORY FOR LEMHI COUNTY!
But I want everyone to understand how we got here, what our community accomplished, and why this is not the end of our fight.
I also want to share some disturbing developments in Washington D.C. that I believe every rancher, hunter, landowner, and Idaho resident needs to understand.
HOW DID WE GET HERE?
When this started, BLM was preparing to offer three geothermal parcels in Lemhi County, covering more than 10,000 acres of public land.
Lemhi County Informed (LCI) became concerned that geothermal development in our valley could eventually pave the way for a data center in our community—especially since geothermal projects are already being used to power data centers elsewhere (see this Nevada-based example and this Utah-based example).
Our concerns grew when we discovered that President Trump had signed a July 23, 2025 executive order specifically intended to speed up the construction of data centers and the energy infrastructure that powers them, including geothermal facilities, on federal lands.
LCI submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to BLM asking, among other things, WHO nominated our geothermal parcels?
When the records finally arrived, we discovered that Ormat Nevada, a 100% subsidiary of Ormat Technologies, had nominated all three Lemhi County parcels.
And here's where it gets interesting.
Ormat has been expanding its geothermal business into supplying electricity specifically for data centers.
In January 2026, Ormat announced a 20-year agreement to supply geothermal power to Switch, a major data-center operator. The following month, Ormat announced an agreement involving up to 150 megawatts of geothermal power to support Google's data centers in Nevada.
Suddenly, our concerns weren't just about some hypothetical connection between geothermal power and data centers. The company nominating our land was already pursuing exactly that business!
Does this prove Ormat plans to build a data center in Lemhi County? No. But it gives us a very real reason to investigate what future development might look like.
Read our earlier investigation, including the BLM records and Ormat nomination documents.
Knowing that the federal government was actively encouraging data-center development, we didn't believe simply asking BLM not to lease our land would accomplish much.
We needed to find out whether BLM was even legally allowed to lease these parcels in the first place.
So we began investigating the government's own land-use plans.
That meant working through hundreds of pages of government records, historic maps, and complicated digital files. We used every tool at our disposal, including technology that helped us interpret GIS Map data files that require specialized software to read.
And what we found raised serious questions.
First, (as previously reported) we found a historic closure at Sharkey Hot Springs.
BLM's approved 1987 Lemhi Resource Management Plan said approximately 800 acres at Sharkey Hot Springs were CLOSED to geothermal leasing.
Yet land associated with that closure had made its way into the proposed lease sale.
After we brought the historic records to BLM's attention, the agency recognized the closure and revised the proposed leasing.
We must acknowledge and thank BLM for taking that step.
Then we found another problem: the missing maps.
BLM's 1987 plan identified 15,596 acres closed to geothermal leasing in the Lemhi planning area.
But the 2008 geothermal decision identified 60,464 acres CLOSED!
That's nearly 45,000 additional acres identified as closed in the later planning record!
But where are those acres?
And without the maps, how do we know whether BLM properly checked the land being offered for leasing against those closures?
Keep in mind, we still have not obtained the underlying 2008 maps needed to answer these questions or establish exactly how the additional closed acreage was distributed.
We also raised serious questions about protections for the Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail, sage-grouse, elk, mule deer, water, and the ranching operations that depend on these lands.
Then, after further review, BLM removed two of the three Lemhi County parcels from the November 17 auction!
And there was an important development beyond Lemhi County.
The same amendment removed NINE OTHER PARCELS THROUGHOUT IDAHO!
National Historic and Scenic Trail protections were also an issue in that broader review.
Our community helped bring attention to a problem that extended far beyond Lemhi County. It's a wonderful example of how standing up for our own county can contribute to protecting public lands elsewhere in Idaho!
But after those removals, one Lemhi County parcel remained: Parcel 0056, approximately 3,540 acres near Sharkey Hot Springs.
And we weren't finished.
WE HIRED AN ATTORNEY WHO KNOWS BLM FROM THE INSIDE
As November 17 approached, LCI retained Dusty Parson of Versa Law Group to help us challenge the remaining parcel.
I want to take a moment to explain why Dusty has been so important to this effort.
Dusty previously worked for BLM, including serving as Acting Associate District Manager for BLM's California Desert District.
He also served as the Boise Field Solicitor for the U.S. Department of the Interior.
In other words, Dusty has worked both in BLM management and as a federal attorney advising the department.
He understands how these land-use decisions are made, how the agency reviews them, and what questions need to be answered.
That's exactly the experience we needed!
Dusty took months of our research, documents, maps, correspondence, and community concerns and organized them into a powerful legal objection.
Together, we submitted a formal objection of more than 100 pages, including supporting evidence, requesting withdrawal or deferral of Parcel 0056.
Our objection questioned whether BLM had properly established that the remaining acreage was legally available for leasing, whether the required environmental review had been completed, and whether the protections already established in the governing land-use plans had been followed.
But something else made this objection particularly important.
FINDING COMMON GROUND WAS CRITICAL TO THIS EFFORT
This may be one of the biggest lessons from everything we've accomplished.
Our effort brought together people who don't always agree about public lands.
Critically, all three of our Lemhi County Commissioners signed letters requesting that BLM postpone, withdraw, or defer the proposed leasing.
They deserve a BIG thank-you!
But the community stepped up as well.
We had ranchers. We had hunters. We had landowners. We had people concerned about history, wildlife, water, and our rural ways of life.
We also had conservation-oriented organizations raising concerns.
Now think about that for a moment.
Ranchers and conservation-based organizations don't always see eye to eye on public-land issues.
Yet here they were, raising serious concerns about the same proposed geothermal leases.
THAT IS POWERFUL!
Having groups who normally don't agree finding common ground sent an important message to BLM:
This wasn't just one group complaining. People from across the community believed BLM needed to address serious problems before moving forward!
Dusty shared something particularly interesting from his conversations with BLM: officials noticed the broad range of people and organizations represented in our objection.
Usually, when there's a controversial public-land decision, people line up on opposite sides. An agency may hear strong objections from one group but support from another, and BLM will hide its decision behind the opposing group's views.
Our situation was different.
LCI was able to bring people together from very different backgrounds, all asking BLM to answer important questions before creating new federal geothermal lease rights.
Their reasons weren't identical.
Ranchers were concerned about grazing, water, roads, and livestock.
Hunters were concerned about wildlife and access.
Conservation organizations brought concerns about wildlife habitat, water, land management, and the protections required by law.
And many residents shared concerns about the possible long-term industrial development of our valley.
But everyone found common ground on something important:
BLM needed to address these problems BEFORE moving forward.
Dusty was told by a BLM official that this broad support made our objection much harder to dismiss.
I cannot say that any single letter or issue caused BLM's decision. But I believe this cooperation was one of the greatest strengths of our effort.
And I hope we never lose sight of what we accomplished by working together!
WHAT DOES THIS DEFERRAL ACTUALLY MEAN?
This is extremely important.
DEFERRED DOES NOT MEAN PERMANENTLY REMOVED.
Although the new deferral has not yet been reflected on BLM's public lease-sale information, BLM has notified our attorney that Parcel 0056 will not be offered in the November 17 auction.
But the agency could potentially bring all three original Lemhi County parcels back in a future lease sale.
We have not won permanent protection for these lands, and we haven't received answers to every question we raised.
What we have won is TIME! Blessed time.
More time to investigate the missing maps.
More time to examine the historic protections.
More time to raise funds, build partnerships, and understand the potential impacts on ranchers, wildlife, water, roads, and nearby landowners.
More time to strengthen our legal position.
And that brings me to the next concern…
WHAT ABOUT THE RANCH PURCHASES PEOPLE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT?
At our recent Commissioners' meeting, one of our commissioners expressed concerns about ranch purchases in Lemhi County, including a possible connection to Ormat Nevada.
LCI has looked into those claims, but has not been able to independently verify the original reported connection to Ormat.
However, following that lead uncovered something else that we believe deserves further investigation.
We've learned of at least one possible pending ranch purchase involving a prospective buyer with past ties to the technology industry, including a company now involved in AI.
That certainly got my attention!
But I have NOT established that this purchase is connected to Ormat or that a data center is planned for Lemhi County.
I'm not sharing names or properties publicly as some of the information is not yet documented in public records.
It's important to emphasize that ranchers who sell their property may have every reason to believe they're simply selling to someone who wants to own a ranch. The buyer's larger plans, business connections, or intentions for the land are often completely unknown to the seller.
This is by design. Secrecy has already been part of how major data-center companies do business.
In fact, some companies have required local government officials to sign agreements preventing them from sharing information about proposed data-center projects with the public!
The practice became so controversial that Microsoft publicly promised to stop using these secrecy agreements, and OpenAI has since made a similar commitment.
If companies have been asking our elected officials to keep their plans secret, how can we expect ordinary landowners to know what might ultimately happen to their property?
We are entering a new world, and I think there's an important lesson here for every Idaho landowner:
If someone wants to buy your property, do your homework! Find out who the buyer really is, what companies they're connected to, and what they might eventually want to do with your land.
I want to be careful about the difference between what we know and what we're still investigating. I have no evidence that the prospective buyer I'm researching has deceived anyone.
But I also don't think concerns about land purchases that could someday be connected to industrial development should be dismissed.
And getting Parcel 0056 deferred gives us more time to investigate these questions before federal geothermal lease rights are created.
There's still a lot we're working to uncover!
THE BAD AND THE UGLY: TWO DEVELOPMENTS EVERY IDAHOAN SHOULD KNOW ABOUT
As we celebrate this victory, two major developments are happening in Washington that I believe could threaten the future of rural Idaho.
⚠️ 1. CONGRESS IS FAST-TRACKING WHAT CRITICS CALL A "DIRTY DATA CENTER BILL"
It's called the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act (BAAJA).
It sounds harmless enough, doesn't it?
But some are calling it the "dirty data center bill" for good reason.
The bill, which has already advanced through major votes in the Senate, could make it much harder for communities to challenge or stop federal approvals for large industrial projects, including infrastructure powering massive AI data centers.
In some cases, even if a court finds that the government broke environmental review laws, the proposed rules could prevent the court from stopping the project while those problems are corrected.
Imagine discovering that the government failed to follow the law, but being unable to stop a massive industrial project from moving forward!
That's why critics are sounding the alarm.
And that's why I'm worried.
Our own experience in Lemhi County shows why the ability to review government decisions and challenge their mistakes matters so much.
What happens to communities like ours if those legal protections are weakened?
BAAJA has not become law, but Congress is actively considering it.
Read Earthjustice's explanation of how the bill could affect communities.
⚠️ 2. THE GOVERNMENT IS PLANNING TO SELL OFF AMERICA'S PUBLIC LANDS!
The Trump administration's new 2026–2030 plan calls for selling federal public lands to states, local governments, and tribes.
Yes, selling federal public lands.
But here's what worries me.
What happens if states cannot afford to maintain all the land they acquire? And let's be realistic: managing huge areas of land is expensive!
Could states eventually turn around and sell that land to the highest bidder, including wealthy investors or corporations?
And what happens to the ranchers, hunters, and families who have relied on those public lands for generations?
We don't have to look far to understand why this matters.
Look at what happened in Idaho in May 2026.
Governor Brad Little chairs the Idaho State Board of Land Commissioners, which approved the sale of 160 acres of state endowment land near Tetonia.
The land sold for $5 MILLION to a company owned by a billionaire named Thomas Tull.
The Beard family, a fifth-generation ranching family, had leased the property for grazing for more than 30 years.
Even though their grazing lease was supposed to run until 2032, the state could terminate it because of the sale.
The new buyer offered to continue the family's grazing arrangement for now, which was welcome news.
But consider the larger issue.
A family could spend generations grazing land, and then a sale could put their future access in someone else's hands.
Keep in mind that this property was already owned by the State of Idaho, not BLM.
But imagine similar situations if large areas of federal public land were sold or transferred to states and later ended up in private ownership.
What would happen to the ranchers who depend on that land?
What would happen to public hunting access?
What would happen to the places we've enjoyed for generations?
(Search: "Nick Beard Tetonia Idaho land sale Thomas Tull 2026")
Read the Idaho Capital Sun report about the Tetonia land sale.
Read about the administration's plan to sell federal public lands.
Read the Associated Press report explaining the federal land-sale proposal.
AND WHAT DOES ALL THIS HAVE TO DO WITH DATA CENTERS?
This is where I want people to pay especially close attention.
We already know that Ormat Nevada nominated all three original Lemhi County geothermal parcels.
We also know that Ormat is expanding its business to supply geothermal electricity to large technology companies and data centers.
That connection is documented. It is not speculation.
See our previous report, including Ormat's nomination forms and data-center energy agreements.
Now consider these other developments.
The federal government is working to speed up permits for large energy and industrial projects.
Congress is considering legislation that could make legal challenges much harder.
And the Interior Department has announced plans to sell public lands.
At the same time, there is enormous demand for electricity to power AI data centers.
And there's something else worth knowing.
A recent investigation by ProPublica revealed that Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, who is helping lead the push for data centers on public land, has substantial personal investments in AI-related businesses.
That raises serious questions about potential conflicts of interest.
The Interior Department says Burgum has complied with his ethics obligations and denies that his decisions are driven by personal investments.
The report does not establish that federal land sales are being arranged to benefit particular investors. But I believe the connections between public-land policy, major energy development, and the data-center industry deserve close attention.
I believe these developments could represent an existential threat to the rural Idaho way of life if communities lose meaningful control over decisions affecting their land and resources.
We have not established that any specific data center is planned for Lemhi County.
But I believe we have VERY good reason to keep asking questions.
THIS IS WHY OUR DEFERRAL MATTERS SO MUCH!
We have already seen how difficult it can be for an ordinary community to obtain the information it needs from the federal government.
We've spent months requesting records, studying land-use plans, locating historic closures, and asking why important protections weren't clearly accounted for.
And now we're watching proposals in Washington that could make it even harder to challenge government decisions or keep public lands in public hands.
That's why I'm so grateful we were able to stop the November 17 leasing of our remaining parcel for now.
We have more time.
We have more information.
We have a strong attorney helping us.
And most importantly, we've shown what happens when people who care about their community come together!
THANK YOU, LEMHI COUNTY!
To everyone who wrote a letter, attended a meeting, contacted an official, helped with research, contributed financially, or simply encouraged us:
THANK YOU!
I want to especially thank our three county commissioners—Rick Carlson, Kim Caywood, and Lynn Bowerman—for standing together and formally asking BLM to postpone or defer these leases.
I also want to recognize Dusty Parson of Versa Law Group.
Dusty took our concerns seriously, understood the significance of the documents we had uncovered, and helped turn our community's work into a strong, organized legal objection.
His knowledge of BLM and federal land law has been instrumental.
And I want to thank the ranchers, hunters, conservation groups, historical preservation advocates, and other community members who spoke up.
Our strength came from the fact that we did not all have to agree on everything to work together on something that mattered.
This is not necessarily a permanent victory.
But it is an important one!
Our county’s last remaining geothermal parcel has now been removed from the November 17 auction schedule.
Now let's use this extra time to keep investigating, keep asking questions, and keep working toward lasting protection for Lemhi County.
There's still a lot to do!
— Paola Brown
Lemhi County Informed
Have questions? Feel free to comment, tag me, or reach out via email (see below). We're happy to share what we've learned, explain the documents, and distinguish what we've confirmed from what we're still investigating.
Comments
Post a Comment