Another battle over local access to federal lands received a setback Tuesday with a federal court ruling that said Kane County had failed to prove its claims to disputed roads.

In the majority opinion issued by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver, justices wrote that Kane County had "no right" to erect signs that were contrary to the wishes of federal land managers.

At issue is the county's claim to so-called RS2477 roads designated in the Civil War era on more than 1.3 million acres within the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument and several wilderness and recreation areas.

The RS2477 statute created "rights of way" to construct highways over certain parcels of public lands, rights local governments contend have been "explicitly" preserved over the years.

In one of the most active disputes over the issue, both Kane and Garfield counties have laid "claim" to roadways — often dusty, unpaved trails — that have been used for years. The state public lands planning office is mapping RS2477 roads, having recorded 2,200 "Class B" roads that may still be disputed in court.

Monument and wilderness area designations made many of those roads off limits to previously accepted uses, giving rise to a conflict that pits environmentalists against local government officials.

The dispute boiled over in 2003 when Kane County officials removed 31 Bureau of Land Management signs prohibiting off-road vehicle use. "Approximately one year and a half later, county officials began erecting numerous county road signs on federal lands," designating areas open to vehicle use.

The Wilderness Society and Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance sued, alleging the county's placement of the signs was in direct contradiction to federal management of the areas.

In the opinion Tuesday, the majority ruled that Kane County's claims are in contradiction to the federal Supremacy Clause, which relegates local claims below federal rights.

In his dissent, Justice Michael McConnell wrote that in the designation of the national monument, federal land management was "subject to existing rights," and it was improper to wield the Supremacy Clause because the federal government is not a party to the case.

Additionally, he stressed that environmental groups should not be allowed to "hijack" the negotiations in which conflicts can be resolved in a spirit of "mutual accommodation."

"Resolution of disagreements regarding roads in this part of the country is a matter of intense local interest. One side or the other, the county or federal government, may go to court. But there is no need to do so lightly or prematurely. By holding that counties have no valid existing rights to manage or maintain roads over federal lands without first going to court, the majority today has made mutual accommodation more difficult."

e-mail: amyjoi@deseretnews.com