Utah's congressional delegation has asked President Obama not to use the Antiquities Act to create a Bears Ears National Monument in southeastern Utah.
In quick reaction to President Obama's use of the Antiquities Act to designate three national monuments in California, members of Utah's congressional delegation have asked the president specifically not to use his powers under that Act to designate a monument in southeastern Utah.
Interior Department officials announced late Thursday that the president would designate Castle Mountains National Monument, Sand to Snow National Monument, and Mojave Trails National Monument in California, and made a point of noting that there was great local support for the designations. Supporters of protecting these areas include local counties and cities, area business groups, tribes, hunters, anglers, faith-based organizations, recreationists, local land trusts and conservation groups, and students from local schools, the release said.
By midday Friday the Utah delegation announced that it had sent a letter to the president "expressing strong opposition to the use of the Antiquities Act to create a national monument within San Juan County."
The land in question, some 1.9 million acres, has been discussed as a potential national monument for some time. While Native American tribes have wanted to see establishment of a Bears Ears National Monument, U.S. Reps. Rob Bishop and Jason Chaffetz, both Utah Republicans, have proposed a 1.2-million-acre Bears Ears National Conservation Area.
In their letter to the president -- signed by Sens. Orin Hatch and Mike Lee, and Reps. Bishop, Chaffetz, Stewart, and Mia Love -- the delegation stated that "(F)ederal land-use policy has a major impact on the lives of those residing within and near federal lands. We believe the wisest land-use decisions are made with community involvement and local support. This principle is true whether skyscrapers or sagebrush surround the community.
“Use of the Antiquities Act within will be met with fierce local opposition and will further polarize federal land-use discussions for years, if not decades. We believe the wisest land-use decisions are made with community involvement and local support. This principle is true whether skyscrapers or sagebrush surround a community. Use of the Antiquities Act within will be met with fierce local opposition and will further polarize federal land-use discussions for years, if not decades."
Comments
The answer to the question about why, if most Utahans support preserving public lands, they don't vote in representatives who support them is simple.
Utah's voting districts, including those for state legislature, are so heavily gerrymandered that a huge number of voters, especially younger ones, simply feel there is no point in voting. Utah has the lowest voter turnout of any of the 50 states.
Only 28.8 percent of the voting-age population actually cast ballots.
We need to find a way to convince them that IF the 72 percent who don't vote got out and did, there would probably be a seismic shift in our state government and Congressional delegation.
Maybe someday.
Actually tied for third according to this article. The article also makes no reference to gerrymandering as the cause. Instead it sites un competitive races. Apparently the other side can't put up and decent candidates.
http://www.sltrib.com/news/1873023-155/utah-had-3rd-lowest-voter-turnout...
Gerrymandering, EC. Extreme in some cases.
https://ballotpedia.org/Redistricting_in_Utah
http://utahpoliticohub.com/utah-gerrymandering-and-its-consequences-are-...
http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/1794525-155/lake-salt-republican-county-ht...
http://utahpolicy.com/index.php/features/today-at-utah-policy/6480-most-...
Kurt - how do you gerrymander and get two republican senators? Not to say the gerrymandering doesn't happen - by both parties as your articles admit. But obviously it isn't the contributor to Hatch an and Lee's reelections.
EC, I would presume you draw the state legislative districts so politically tight, as well as the congressional districts, to prevent your opponent's party from managing even a toehold (or doughnut hole) by which they could voice their ideas and entertain the slightest possibility of gaining support. Without a soapbox, there's little or no chance of gaining any traction for your ideas, no?
Whether GOP or Democratic, gerrymandered districts generate a political hierachy that is not easily toppled. I wouldn't automatically discount it in Utah's elections.
Kurt - I am no champion of gerrymandering. But the math says, gerrymandering can't help both districts in a two district senatorial race. Gerrymandering has no impact on the election of the two senators and I have yet to see that it has any impact (as claimed by Lee) on voter turn out.
Another significant problem in Utah is the amount of money contributed by organizations and donors who do not live in the state. Dark money from various PACs is sucked in mainly by GOP candidates. Tragically, on the other hand, even the Democratic National Committee seems to have given up on the idea of electing a Democrat from Utah. The party contributes virtually nothing to any of its candidates here.
In the most recent race for Congress, Mia Love collected well over a million dollars from outside PACs, most of which are completely anonymous. The same thing happens on the Senate side. Over half of Orrin Hatch's money came from slithery secret PACs. The Large Saline Puddle isn't the only thing that smells in Utah.
As I wrote above, with the majority of Utah's voters registered as "unaffiliated" and virtually none of them voting, the trick is going to be trying to convince enough of them that staying home on election day is surrendering before the battle has been fought. Of the 29 percent who do vote, almost all are diehard ideologues who think they'd be struck down by divine lightning if they stayed home.
But, of course money won't influence any decisons by our lawmakers, will it? (Although champions of "free enterprise" point out that any business owner who invests in his business has a right to expect some kind of return on his investment. If that's the case, there wouldn't be any sense in donating to a candidate if there was no expectation for return on investment.)