However, the management plan reflects the view asserted by the counties in another case involving an environmental dispute. This position, which was accepted by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, is that "the final, binding determination of the counties' RS2477 right-of-way claims is a matter for the courts, not the BLM."

No regulation in the Federal Land Planning and Management Act (the law that replaced RS2477) imposes a legal duty on the BLM to decide unresolved RS2477 issues, he added. He dismissed the counties' claims in this matter. But he did not rule on the question of whether the counties have valid interests in routes that were closed as that was not a dispute in this lawsuit.

Another contention by Garfield and Kane counties was that the BLM should not have banned off-road vehicles from routes in the monument in which the counties do have acknowledged legal rights of way, such as the Burr Trail. The agency's intention was to prevent illegal off-road driving.

Jenkins wrote that the federal government and intervening environmental groups correctly pointed out that challenges on this issue involved property rights — whether counties in effect own the right to regulate traffic there.

He agreed that "disputes concerning property rights on federal land must be brought into federal court pursuant to the Quiet Title Act ... not the Administrative Procedure Act."

The judge gave the counties 20 days to refile these claims under the Quiet Title Act.

Finally, the counties had charged that the BLM put unauthorized burdens on removing water from the monument for certain uses. Jenkins pointed out that the monument plan allows water for the town of Henrieville, Garfield County, plus other communities if taking it doesn't affect monument resources.

No one has indicated the agency has issued a decision yet on the water request involved in the suit. That concerns the Kane County Water Conservancy District wishing to drill a well, construct an access road and pipeline, and put up a power line for the Johnson Canyon water system.

Because the BLM apparently has not issued a decision, Jenkins wrote, the district's challenge "appears to be premature." It could be filed later if the BLM rules against the request.

Shawn T. Welch of Salt Lake City, a lawyer who is representing the counties in the dispute, said no decision has been made yet about appealing the ruling or refiling claims on another basis.

"We've got it under consideration," he said.

---

E-mail: bau@desnews.com