Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb: Exploring the ramifications of designating another Utah monument

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • U-tar Woodland Hills, UT
    June 5, 2014 8:27 p.m.

    @ 10CC
    Obama already ignores Utahns, and about 35 other states, what's new.

  • andyjaggy American Fork, UT
    June 5, 2014 1:01 p.m.

    I would love to see another monument and more land protected here in Utah, but I wouldn't want to be here if/when Obama did it, it would be rather unbearable and the outrage would be horrendous. For now I say leave it alone Obama, designate monuments in other states where there is support for them. If Utah wants oil wells and ATV tracks to cover every square mile of their state than I guess that is what they will get.

  • FT salt lake city, UT
    June 3, 2014 3:59 p.m.

    Here's another one of the majority of Utahns and Americans that want more of our public lands set aside as wilderness.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    June 2, 2014 9:56 a.m.

    Utah_1 said: "In 1976, Utah sued the Feds when they wanted to put up drilling rigs in Utah Lake."

    Perfect example of what Utah would do if they could, thanks for the history Utah_1, Oil dericks In Utah lake, oh well in 76 they would have only added to the beauty Geneva Steel reflected on the mud.

  • McMurphy St George, Utah
    June 2, 2014 7:42 a.m.

    Pignanelli -- Setting aside more lands might motivate many voters to rebuke Democrats. Exactly how could Utah voters be less friendly to Democrats than they already are ??

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    June 2, 2014 6:40 a.m.

    One less place to tear up the ground with your ATV. Its been down hill since Utah left Mexico.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    June 1, 2014 11:19 a.m.

    Pignanelli: For decades, the feds were viewed as the enlightened forces promoting civil rights, clean air and water, and safer food. However, because of numerous blunders (i.e. Hurricane Katrina, veterans, citizens privacy, health care rollout, etc.) the federal government is the nation’s town drunk (well-meaning but a joke). States are on the cutting edge of reform and innovation.

    That's why 100,000 or so Utah citizens are left without health care. I can see the D-News preferred you over Ted Wilson. You fit in so much better here than Ted ever could.

  • 10CC Bountiful, UT
    June 1, 2014 11:19 a.m.

    Trying to find consensus in our partisan 2014 "United States", where we can't even agree on what the news is, is an increasingly elusive goal.

    There are exceptional situations where agreement occurs, but any Republican who compromises with Obama (eg, Gary Herbert) is viewed at best as being a dupe, at worst, part of a grand conspiracy.

    After giving opportunity for the various sides to work through their differences in a proposed national monument, such as the Navajo Dine-Bikeyah area in Southeastern Utah, I would strongly urge the President to take unilateral action, if need be, and set this land aside.

    (Perhaps the threat of unilateral action may prompt local interests into a compromise, though that appears extraordinarily unlikely.)

    Obama or any other Democratic presidential candidate will never win Utah over, there is nothing that a Democrat could do to get the respect or support of the majority of Utahns, on just about any issue, and the Legislature carved up our state so that a Democratic congressman will never be elected again in our lifetime, so the downside of unilateral action is almost nil.

    Do the right thing, Mr. President. Ignore Utahns.

  • There You Go Again Saint George, UT
    June 1, 2014 8:57 a.m.

    Utah officials are concerned President Obama will (fill-in-the-blank)...


  • Utah_1 Salt Lake City, UT
    June 1, 2014 12:44 a.m.

    In 1976, Utah sued the Feds when they wanted to put up drilling rigs in Utah Lake. It took 10 years, but Utah won. The SCOTUS said that it didn't matter that the Feds had laws on the books, or that the Enabling Act didn't mention the state sovereign land that exists under the high water mark of navigable bodies of land at statehood. Utah was accepted as a State with equal footing of the original 13 states.

    It is clear that the Feds power is to be kept in check, partly by the 3 branches of government. That isn't working as they have worked together as of late to take power from the state. Under Art. 1, 8, 17, the Feds have no right to the land they are claiming now and have no right to take further control. Read the minutes when Art. 1, 8, 17 was being debated.

    I don't believe Utah will be "taking back" the land, but the feds didn't sell it and have no right to keep it, violating the US Constitution and our enabling act in 1976 with FLIPMA giving Utah a claim.

    Utah under its own constitution, Art. IIXX and XX has protection for the land in place.