By Mike McGarity, President, California Off-Road Vehicle Association

Nineteen environmental organizations are the subject of a House Natural Resources Committee oversight investigation into their litigation practices and recovery of taxpayer-funded attorney fees. Announced September 4, 2026, the inquiry is led by Committee Chairman Bruce Westerman and Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee Chairman Paul Gosar. For CORVA members, it raises questions about how litigation affecting public-land management is financed—and whose interests receive consideration.

The committee sent letters seeking written answers and in-person testimony from organizations including the Center for Biological Diversity, Earthjustice, Sierra Club, Western Watersheds Project, WildEarth Guardians, and The Wilderness Society. Republican committee members allege that environmental organizations are exploiting federal attorney-fee provisions to support litigation campaigns. These are allegations under examination, not established findings of unlawful conduct. The announcement concerns congressional oversight; it does not establish an FBI or Department of Justice criminal investigation.

At the center of the inquiry are laws allowing qualifying parties to recover legal expenses in certain cases against the federal government. Under the Equal Access to Justice Act, reimbursement depends on statutory requirements, including whether the applicant prevailed and whether the government’s position was substantially justified. Receiving a lawful fee award is not, by itself, evidence of abuse. The question for Congress is whether the system operates as intended and whether reforms are warranted.

Why does this matter to CORVA? Because litigation can shape whether families retain access to public lands. When a lawsuit challenges a motorized recreation plan, the consequences can extend beyond an agency’s paperwork. Routes, camping opportunities, connections between recreation areas, and access to rural businesses can all be at stake. CORVA believes those consequences deserve serious consideration alongside environmental concerns.

Many off-roaders feel that their recreation and way of life are under sustained pressure. When an organization seeks restrictions on motorized access, members understandably view that position as a threat to the places and traditions they value. However, CORVA’s strongest argument rests on documented actions: what restrictions were requested, what evidence supported them, what alternatives were considered, and how the public would be affected. We should examine each organization’s record rather than assume all nineteen share identical positions or motives.

CORVA supports transparency about taxpayer-funded legal reimbursements. Members deserve to understand how much is paid, which cases generate those payments, and whether the process serves the public interest. At the same time, accountability must include federal agencies. Our advocacy depends on agencies following the law, conducting sound analysis, and making defensible decisions that preserve responsible recreation.

Some critics describe uncompromising environmental advocacy as resembling a religion. That is an opinion about ideological rigidity, not a factual description of these organizations. “Environmental justice” has an established policy meaning concerning fair treatment and public participation in environmental decisions. CORVA can challenge exclusionary policies without dismissing that principle. Our position is that off-road families, rural communities, older visitors, and people who rely on vehicles to experience public lands also deserve a meaningful voice.

Responsible recreation and environmental stewardship belong together. CORVA members volunteer, maintain trails, remove trash, and work with land managers because we care about the places we use. We should insist that access decisions consider practical management options and credible evidence before imposing closures.

This inquiry does not reopen a trail or overturn a court order. Its importance lies in the opportunity to examine litigation funding and inform potential legislative reforms. CORVA members should follow the proceedings, participate in local planning, document the effects of proposed restrictions, and support our collective advocacy.

Our message remains clear: Protecting Public Land FOR the people, not FROM the people.