Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb: Exploring the ramifications of designating another Utah monument
Ravell Call, Deseret News
With the recent presidential establishment of a national monument in New Mexico, many Utah officials are concerned that President Obama will designate another monument in Utah, possibly in the Canyonlands area. We explore these concerns.
What’s wrong with the president designating a national monument in Utah and is it likely to happen?
Pignanelli: "The public lands are a public stock, which ought to be disposed of to the best advantage for the nation." — President James Monroe
Readers, consider investments in manufacturers of yellow "Don't Tread on Me" flags and colonial tricorn hats. If President Obama designates more wilderness protection in Utah, thousands will attend protest rallies in revolutionary garb.
Despite pressure from conservation groups, some educated observers believe the appropriate conditions do not exist to warrant such a presidential decree. Recent designation of monuments in other states had support from the local officials — absent in Utah. So, under this analysis, President Obama is likely to ignore the Beehive State.
Yet, similar dynamics were in play in 1996, but President Bill Clinton ignored them and designated 1.7 million acres in the Escalante monument. This was a gift for the “Big Dawg” — consolidating his environmental base and sticking it to the state that humiliated him with third place in the 1992 elections.
Shrewd politicos believe if the president allows the Keystone pipeline — for political and legacy protection reasons — he may designate a monument in Utah to appease green special-interest groups. As with Clinton, Obama is unpopular in Utah and so he has nothing to lose.
Although the president is receiving pressure from conservation and outdoor recreation organizations, other forces may drive any monument actions in Utah.
Webb: You can barely turn over a shovel of dirt on federal lands without jumping through all sorts of hoops, including lengthy environmental assessments to determine the impact on plants, animals, people, economy, culture, water, archaeological sites and so forth. Numerous public hearings must be held and input received from all stakeholder groups.
So it is outrageous that, with the stroke of a pen, a president can dramatically change — often for political purposes — the designation and use of millions of acres of land, and impact the lives of many citizens, without any study or analysis. The designation law was never intended to be used for massive chunks of land, and it flies in the face of federal laws and regulations requiring due process and careful evaluation of impacts.
I don’t know if Obama will make the designation or not, but every Utahn ought to be outraged if he does.
While a monument designation might upset rural Utahns, what are the political ramifications among Wasatch Front residents who love outdoor recreation?
Pignanelli: Most Utahns are suspicious of the federal government and will punish the party of a president who undertakes unilateral actions that seem unfair. Democrats suffered losses from Clinton’s Escalante designation. A similar move by Obama will motivate many Utah voters to rebuke Democrats. But over time the issue will mellow. Wasatch Front residents care about quality outdoor activities and opportunities throughout the state, certainly as much as oil shale development. The state economy is diversifying and the burgeoning manufacturing recreation industry will continue its demands for environmental protection.
- In our opinion: U.S. needs immigration... 72
- Dan Liljenquist: Obamacare was a rude... 61
- Letter: Growing party divide 53
- Letter: Acting on immigration 50
- Michael Gerson: Obama’s executive... 46
- How America feels about Mitt Romney... 40
- Letter: King Obama 28
- My view: Global warming needs free market 26