A plan to move the Bureau of Land Management’s headquarters out of Washington, D.C., to Colorado is giving some people a panic attack. But it could be just what the BLM and the federal government need more of.

The list of criticisms of the move is long and shrill. If it’s something the Trump administration wants, opponents will line up almost no matter what.

Some say it will limit the ability of the BLM to be influential in Washington — or it will limit congressional oversight. Others say it is going to be disruptive to families and careers of BLM employees, weakening the agency as some quit. And another complaint is that the Trump administration has not made a case for the move that adds up all the costs.

Almost all of the land the BLM manages is west of the Mississippi. Why shouldn’t the headquarters of the agency be closer to the resources it oversees and the people its decisions affect? Grand Junction, Colo., is a fine spot.

Yes, we know the BLM has local officials on the ground across the West. It is their job to give the BLM a local presence. But what matters more: changing the mind of a local official or changing the mind of the top officials in the BLM? Moving the headquarters to Colorado makes it a bit easier for Westerners to access those top officials and — dare we suggest it — makes it easier for the top officials to access the people and land they regulate. The move may help reshape the mindset of top BLM employees to be more oriented toward serving the public rather than lobbyists, members of Congress and other bureaucrats in Washington.

The civil service has many dedicated employees. But it is based on a system rooted in tenure and not performance. It is due for a shakeup — even if it is only the BLM.

Moving the headquarters to Grand Junction won’t magically transform the BLM. The move at its core is about better connecting government to the people it is supposed to serve. That’s worth it.