海角大神

With monument reductions, Trump Inflames century-old debate

America's unique relationship with public lands has long been a source of pride 鈥� and strife.

President Trump unleashed the latest salvo Monday in a long-running battle over how America鈥檚 public lands should be treated.

In a stark contrast to recent presidents who have sought to leave a lasting legacy by creating national monuments, Mr. Trump plans to drastically reduce two of the monuments created by his predecessors. His action 鈥� which is expected to be challenged in court 鈥� will be a test of whether, in fact,聽he has the power聽to do so.

But, while Trump鈥檚 actions tread new legal ground, the underlying tensions at play in this current battle over America鈥檚 public lands stretch back more than a century.聽At the heart of these tensions lies both a shared sense of pride in America鈥檚 so-called natural cathedrals and a fundamental disagreement over how land use should be regulated.

鈥淭his is a reflection of the ongoing tug-of-war over preservation of resources and lands, and multiple-use activities鈥� on those lands, says聽Robert Keiter, a law professor at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City and director of the Wallace Stegner Center of Land, Resources, and the Environment.

National parks are often cited as 鈥淎merica鈥檚 best idea,鈥� but Professor Keiter notes that simply reserving vast tracts of lands in the public domain as national forests,聽an action which began in the late 19th century, was also a pretty radical step at the time. But while Americans historically have had a great deal of pride in those public lands, there has also been long-standing pushback from some Westerners both about the amount of land in the public domain and the way in which it鈥檚 used 鈥� a battle over use that Trump is wading into with the Utah monuments.聽

Trump鈥檚 announcement Monday in Salt Lake City has been long anticipated, and affects two national monuments in southern Utah, both of which have been controversial:聽Bears Ears, a 1.35 million-acre monument designated by President Barack Obama聽a year ago at the urging of five area Native American tribes;聽and Grand Staircase-Escalante, a 1.9 million-acre monument designated by President Bill Clinton in 1996. The presidential proclamations that Trump signed Monday turn Bears ears into two small monuments of 130,000 acres and 72,000 acres (an 85 percent reduction) and divide Grand Staircase-Escalante into three smaller monuments of 210,000 acres, 550,000 acres, and 240,000 acres, cutting the total protected space nearly in half.聽

A century-old dispute

Since the Antiquities Act was signed in 1906 by President Theodore Roosevelt, monuments have occupied a unique niche in American lands. They鈥檙e the only means by which a president, rather than Congress, can opt to protect lands, and 16 presidents have used the act to create more than聽, many of which later became some of America鈥檚 most iconic national parks.

The tension over how America鈥檚 public lands are used has its roots in the Western expansion of the 19th century, when settlers and companies hoping to make a profit looked to the vast mineral deposits and forests and grazing lands in the West as a potential bonanza, without many checks on use 鈥� practices that often led to rapid overgrazing, clearcutting, and degradation of lands that at one point seemed limitless. The notion that land should be set aside for something other than economic use was a fairly radical one at the time, and reflects the degree to which many Americans viewed their breathtaking vistas as a point of national pride: natural cathedrals as their answer to Europe鈥檚 treasured cathedrals.

鈥淭here was appropriate concern, maybe even despair, in the late 19th聽century over the outcome of full-out resource extraction and unrestrained land use,鈥� says Patty Limerick, director of the Center of the American West at the University of Colorado in Boulder. But there was also, she notes, plenty of opposition among some Westerners to the idea of setting aside land for preservation, or even keeping such large tracts public. 鈥淭here were some unmistakable currents of resistance 120 years ago,鈥� says Professor Limerick. 鈥淓pisodically, those currents of resistance seem to surge, and a movement that seems to echo previous movements comes into view.鈥�

These tensions tend to bubble up anew at regular intervals, albeit with different constituencies and triggers each time. There was the Sagebrush Rebellion of the 1970s, the 鈥渨ise-use movement鈥� that gained traction in the late 1980s and '90s, and the recent altercations over grazing rights that have been symbolized by the Bundy family and the standoff at the Malheur Wildlife Refuge in Oregon in 2016. The common element tends to be a growing sense that Westerners鈥� rightful use of public lands is being curtailed by a federal government overstepping its bounds. 鈥淭raditional users often see public lands as 鈥榯heir鈥� lands,鈥� notes聽Mark Squillace, a professor of natural resources law at the University of Colorado Law School in Boulder.

While the context and circumstances have changed over the decades, at its heart, the tensions revolve around a fundamental disagreement over how land use should be regulated.聽Should public lands be exploited for 鈥渕ultiple use鈥� 鈥� which often means mining, drilling, grazing, forestry, and other traditional extractive activities? Or preserved for natural beauty and low-impact recreational activities, as has increasingly been the emphasis in recent decades? While monuments 鈥� including Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante 鈥� are open to the public and often allow some traditional uses like grazing and hunting to continue, they generally close off the protected area to new drilling or mining leases. (The restrictions are specific to each particular monument.)

鈥淥ver the last half century we have moved progressively and noticeably toward the protection of public lands in the West, as reflected in the Wilderness Act of 1964 and all the various national parks and [monument] designations that have occurred,鈥� says Keiter. Currently, he says,聽close to 40 percent of the public land in 11 Western states聽is in some sort of legally protected status: parks, monuments, wilderness areas, wilderness study areas, roadless areas, refuges. The general public has endorsed that shift, Keiter says. But 鈥渢hat sentiment and action has been met with mixed results in various Western states.鈥�

Conflicted pride?

Utah has been an epicenter of the latest battle over monuments, and its legislators have been the most vocal in urging Trump to shrink or eliminate certain monuments. But Professor Squillace and others note that four of Utah鈥檚 鈥渕ighty five鈥� parks 鈥� which are a foundation of the state鈥檚 tourism industry and a source of great pride for Utahns 鈥� started as monuments.

When former Utah Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R) introduced a bill in January to sell 3.3 million acres of federal lands in the West, he was forced to withdraw it days later by his Republican constituents, many of whom regularly hunt and fish on those lands. Perceived threats to federal lands over the past year have resulted in huge rallies at statehouses in conservative states 鈥� including Idaho, Montana, Utah, and Wyoming 鈥� as local residents, many of them anglers and hunters, voiced their support of public lands.

On Saturday, thousands turned out in Salt Lake City to protest Trump鈥檚 anticipated actions on Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante, while a smaller rally gathered at a different location to thank Trump for those actions.

What remains unclear is whether Trump actually has the power to reduce these monuments. While some聽聽say he does, other law experts don鈥檛 believe that鈥檚 the case. The conservative argument claims that the Antiquities Act 鈥� in giving broad powers to create monuments 鈥� implies those powers can also be used to reduce or eliminate monuments. And it looks at the precedent of several past presidents, including Woodrow Wilson, Dwight Eisenhower, and Howard Taft, who reduced monuments.

None of those reductions were ever challenged in court, however, and none have occurred since passage of the聽Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, which many legal experts believe even more explicitly limits presidential powers to revoke or reduce monuments.

鈥淚t鈥檚 a relatively straightforward legal issue the court will have to confront, about whether the president has the authority to alter a decision on a national monument by a predecessor,鈥� says Squillace. 鈥淭he Antiquities Act appears to grant only that one-way authority to grant the land.鈥�

Squillace and others say the outcome of the court challenge will have long-range impacts not just for Bears Ears and Grand Staircase and their surrounding communities, but also for how monuments are approached in the future. In particular, they worry about a scenario in which subsequent Democratic and Republican administrations opt to create and un-create each other鈥檚 monuments, with the lands becoming a sort of partisan yo-yo. 鈥淚t creates a real potential roller coaster with respect to managing these public lands,鈥� says Squillace.