Citadel Ruins, Cedar Mesa, Bears National Monument/BLM
Editor's note: The following column was written by Sen. Tom Udall, D-New Mexico, and Rep. Raúl M. Grijalva, D-Arizona.
Almost from the day he took office, President Donald Trump’s environmental agenda has put the profits of big corporations ahead of the public interest.
While Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke pays lip service to balanced uses of public resources, Trump and his administration have overwhelmingly sided with polluting industries who prefer unchecked resource extraction with minimal public oversight.
The Trump approach to public lands has been little more than a parade of handouts to corporate executives and lobbyists who have the administration’s ear. One of the ugliest consequences is President Trump’s illegal destruction of Bears Ears National Monument and Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in southern Utah, where in a 2017 executive order he attempted to shrink monument boundaries despite lacking any authority to do so.
Let’s be clear: no president can unilaterally eliminate existing federal environmental protections on our public lands, however much President Trump may prefer otherwise. His action is clearly illegal, and allowing him to follow through on it would set a precedent that Americans of all political stripes should oppose.
That’s why, along with 118 of our colleagues — 26 senators and 92 representatives — we filed an amicus brief on Nov. 19 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia arguing not only that these national monument boundary reductions are legally void, but that they clearly contradict congressional intent as expressed in the Antiquities Act of 1906, the law President Clinton used to create Grand Staircase-Escalante in 1996 and President Obama used to create Bears Ears in 2016.
This lawmaker coalition, which includes both House and Senate Democratic leadership, represents a strong congressional rebuke to the Trump administration’s insistence that public lands are rightfully the property of oil, gas and coal companies — and puts the administration on notice that it should expect strong oversight of its industry-first agenda in the next Congress.
Sixteen presidents — Republican and Democratic — have used the Antiquities Act for more than a century to protect precious places for future generations. The Constitution, in black and white, gives Congress the power to manage public lands. The president may not create new executive authorities as the need or desire may arise.
The Antiquities Act gives the president power to designate national monument boundaries on existing federal lands and waters. Congress gave the president that power, understanding that the legislative process can be slow and deliberative — and that many public lands and waters could be lost without swift action.
Nowhere does the Antiquities Act give authority to reduce boundaries, revoke monument status or otherwise reduce standing levels of protection.
Most federal cases deal in complicated questions of interpretation. The legal language at issue here is unusually clear.
We find it curious, therefore, that the Department of Justice has taken the unusual step of asking Judge Tanya Chutkan not to allow our filing to be included in the legal record of this case. As members of Congress, we have not only a clear interest in the outcome of the case but unique standing to intervene on behalf of congressional prerogatives. Allowing the executive branch to invent federal land use policy on the fly, outside the boundaries of federal law, is not just a terrible idea on the merits — it is a serious blow to the separation of powers.
This is not a Pandora’s box anyone of any party wants to open. If President Trump’s order stands, Republicans who support his environmental agenda today could face a sudden change of heart the next time a Democrat occupies the White House. In our minds, it is better to keep to the constitutional principles that have served us for centuries than to let a president decide which laws he does and doesn’t follow on a given day.
This is to say nothing of the merits of this specific case, which frankly do the administration no credit. The administration has long claimed the monument reductions were never about opening land to extraction. This doesn’t pass the straight face test, and we have already seen strong evidence to the contrary. Portions cut out of the monuments are known to be rich in oil, coal and uranium, and industry figures have filed claims on several parcels of land formerly within the monument boundaries. Feigning ignorance of these implications only weakens the administration’s case.
The bottom line is that national monuments enjoy overwhelming public support, and presidents have no power to revoke or shrink them with the flick of a pen. That power is simply not found anywhere in the law. The Trump administration does themselves no favors by claiming otherwise. If they wish to locate such power elsewhere, they should say so. If not, they should admit that President Trump’s actions were never legally supported, and that even industry-first administrations need to respect congressional intent, as our Framers made clear.
Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) is ranking member of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies. Rep. Raúl M. Grijalva (D-Ariz.) is ranking member of the House Committee on Natural Resources.
Stories about:
Story Categories:
A copy of National Parks Traveler's financial statements may be obtained by sending a stamped, self-addressed envelope to: National Parks Traveler, P.O. Box 980452, Park City, Utah 84098. National Parks Traveler was formed in the state of Utah for the purpose of informing and educating about national parks and protected areas.
Residents of the following states may obtain a copy of our financial and additional information as stated below:
- Florida: A COPY OF THE OFFICIAL REGISTRATION AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION FOR NATIONAL PARKS TRAVELER, (REGISTRATION NO. CH 51659), MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE DIVISION OF CONSUMER SERVICES BY CALLING 800-435-7352 OR VISITING THEIR WEBSITE. REGISTRATION DOES NOT IMPLY ENDORSEMENT, APPROVAL, OR RECOMMENDATION BY THE STATE.
- Georgia: A full and fair description of the programs and financial statement summary of National Parks Traveler is available upon request at the office and phone number indicated above.
- Maryland: Documents and information submitted under the Maryland Solicitations Act are also available, for the cost of postage and copies, from the Secretary of State, State House, Annapolis, MD 21401 (410-974-5534).
- North Carolina: Financial information about this organization and a copy of its license are available from the State Solicitation Licensing Branch at 888-830-4989 or 919-807-2214. The license is not an endorsement by the State.
- Pennsylvania: The official registration and financial information of National Parks Traveler may be obtained from the Pennsylvania Department of State by calling 800-732-0999. Registration does not imply endorsement.
- Virginia: Financial statements are available from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 102 Governor Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.
- Washington: National Parks Traveler is registered with Washington State’s Charities Program as required by law and additional information is available by calling 800-332-4483 or visiting www.sos.wa.gov/charities, or on file at Charities Division, Office of the Secretary of State, State of Washington, Olympia, WA 98504.
Comments
Thanks for running that op-ed. As many people as possible need to read it.
Hopefully, Individual 1 may not last long enough to do much more damage.
Sentence 1 showed this piece wasn't worth the bits that transmit it. You want to express a different opinion on the management of the parks/environment, fair game. This demogogary from the git go destroys any credibility.
A demagogue is a leader who makes use of popular predujice and false claims and promises to gain power. A demagogue also overturns established customs of political conduct, or promises or threatens to do so. These definitions would certainly point to Trump as a demagogue. The first sentence in this article says that Trump puts profits of big corporations ahead of the public interest. So I'm guessing from your statement, ECBuck, that Trump the demagogue has no credibility. I agree with you!
That first sentence, I had thought, was an axiom. An axiom is defined as 'a self evident truth'.
"Almost from the day he took office, President Donald Trump’s environmental agenda has put the profits of big corporations ahead of the public interest." You don't even have to argue this as good or bad - it is simply an observable truth.
you do realize that it’s NOT big corporations profits. But it’s people’s jobs that come from these corporations?
This morning, we are learning that the latest distraction from the White House is a serious dilution of EPA regulations regarding what is allowed to be dumped into our waterways. Details are pretty sketchy right now, but it looks like such things as pig waste and other "agricultural byproducts" and certain industrial chemical wastes will either be loosened or eliminated.
Maybe the Cleveland Fire Department had better get ready to extinguish the Cuyahoga River again or for people in canoes and kayaks find ways to detect and dodge poopy things.
But, hey MAGA, we're Making America Gooey Again.
Only to those with a blind eye. Who is the true beneficiary of these actions? The American public.
Do a little more research, Lee The regulations being rescinded are only 3 years old and have never been implemented. This action won't change a thing from the status quo.
"agenda has put the profits of big corporations ahead of the public interest"
Sad (and telling) that these Senators think corporate profits are in some way against the public interest. Sadder still is that some people fall for these scare tactics.
Dear Wild Places. Each situation is unique. The loosening of the Methane Rules seems to help corporate profits, but the American people lose big time, in both money and health. That is the tradeoff that many of the changes this administration chooses, decreased health for corporate profits.
Try reading this, about the attack on science in Interior:
https://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-interior-science-...
Or the weakening of clean water rules:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/10/climate/trump-clean-water-rollback.html
There has to be balanced in everything. Is it true that 100% of the land in those huge parcels in Utah is qualified land under the Antiquities Act or did Presidents Clinton and Obama take advantage to add acreage that really does not qualify? To me that would be just as bad is taking away protection from land that truly deserves protection. I like to visit National Monuments, but we also need to be fair to the states and people that live in those states to make a living and if the original application of the law was overzealous, changes should be discussed.
Mark123, a POTUS can only designate a NM on land already administered or managed by the federal government.He can designate land previously owned by a state or private entity only after the land transfer to the federal government has been completed. And any POTUS is now legally prohibited from declaring any NM in the state of Wyoming.That was later added by Congress after the creation of NMs in that state. So, there are real limitations on the Antquities Act. Now, there are state inholdings in the Grand Staircase and Bears Ears. Those, I believe, are SITLA lands used by Utah for education funds and other things. There are also some private parcels too but they are not as numerous.
The NM issue that arises over Grand Staircase(and less with Bears Ears) is that Congress seemed to reaffirm the Grand Staircase by adjusting its boundary shortly after its creation with a vote in Congress. Under law, a POTUS cannot diminish a NM that has been "created" by Congress. That was a result of the 1976 federal lands management act. It prohibits the POTUS from diminishing NMs that are created by an act of Congress. Prior to that, POTUS' had diminshed NMs created by prior presidents and Congress' (Taft, Coolidge, FDR, Truman, Ike, and Kennedy all diminished NMs priot to 76). The '76 act was meant to clarify and set limits on what a POTUS could and could not do with his power.
So, the Grand Staircase situation is somewhat murky in that sense. Congress appears to have affirmed the Grand Staircase NM by adjusting its boundaries AFTER Clinton created it.
Another interesting tidbit about Grand Staircase is that some historical uses of the land were graduated into its creation. Grazing and other historical uses of the land were allowed. It was also, as far as I know, the first NM to be managed and administered by the Bureau of Land Management,a historically multiple-use agency(created when Truman merged the Land Office with the Grazing Service).
Now, the Bears Ears, as far as I know, did not have congressional action taken affirming President Obama's action creating it so....
This will all be worked out legally and the courts will eventually weigh in on the power and limitations of Congress and the Chief Executive. I want to see the courts clarify it if they can.
For someone to claim these roll backs of legislation that is only a few years old and in some cases not even implemented don't benefit the people but only corporate profits reflects total ignorance of economics.
I'm still waiting for specific details on how the Trumping of Bears Ears helps pay my mortgage.
Knowing that Bears Ears and similar were returned to Tribal use would help assuage the burden of guilt born by myself and other white Americans.
Well Rick, I never made that specific claim but reducing the cost of energy, building materials, food ..... would certainly help you pay the mortgage.
It's not only muzzling Congress on monuments we need to be concerned about. It's muzzling scientists and others who have worked so hard for so long to help protect all of us from ourselves and from those who stand to profit by ignorning environmental and safety concerns. Here is an item from this morning's Weekly National Parks Report:
UCS Issues Report On DOI Attacks On Science – The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) just released a 38-page report entitled Science under Siege at the Department of the Interior: America’s Health, Parks, and Wildlife at Risk. “During the first two years of the Trump administration,” says a report overview, “Secretary Ryan Zinke and his political team have unleashed constant and ongoing attacks on science, from sidelining the work of the agency's own scientists to systematically refusing to acknowledge or act on climate change. These actions have far-reaching and serious implications for our health, the environment, and the future of our public lands.” UCS’s indictment focuses on four areas – systematically suppressing science, failing to acknowledge or act on climate change, silencing and intimidating agency scientists and staff, and attacking science-based laws that protect wildlife. “The damage from Secretary Zinke’s policies is mounting,” the overview concludes. “They have caused harm to public lands, public health and safety, and the country’s wildlife and habitats. Left unchecked, the effects will take decades to repair, and yet the consequences of climate change are already upon us. We have no time to lose.” Recommendations include increased Congressional oversight and investigations, increased public engagement with DOI via hearings and comment periods, and increased activism by scientists and others who become aware of threats. Guidance is provided via a number of documents available online. Source: Union of Concerned Scientists.
And this report from today's report regarding new appointments to the National Park Advisory Board:
New NPS Advisory Board Members – The December 6th edition of the Washington Post contained an article assessing the membership of the new NPS advisory board. “Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke has resurrected a federally chartered board that advises the National Park Service with his own appointees, nearly a year after most of its former members resigned in frustration,” reports the Post. “The newly reconstituted National Park System Advisory Board – composed largely of current or retired business executives – was set to meet for the first time [last] Wednesday in Washington. The Interior Department postponed the session, however, because the federal government observed a national day of mourning out of respect for former president George H.W. Bush. The new panel includes a California winemaker, a beer distributor in Texas and three veterans of the real estate and home-building industry. All of the 11 new members appear to be white, and nine of them are men. Public records show all of the new board members are either registered Republicans or have voted repeatedly in GOP primaries. The current committee poses a stark contrast to the 12-member panel picked under President Barack Obama. Two-thirds of those members were women, and the group included African American members and members of Latino and Asian descent.” Click on the following link for more on the new board members. Source: Washington Post.
It would seem the main thing the Washington post is concerned with or sees value in is the color of a persons skin, their gender and nationality. None which have anything to do with a persons qualifications or capabilities but certainly exposes them for what they are.
Actually they pointed out that the advisory board is not diverse, which is a detriment in todays society. They are also republicans that vote that way. Most people in Federal conservation organizations know that when republicans are in power, they are not as supportive of the mission of those conservation organizations as democrats. I know this because I have worked for federal conservation organizations for nearly 30 years.
argalite, diversity purely for diversities sake is what the detriment to society is but that doesn't fit the agenda of the left to divide people based on race and gender. And placing any value on those is what the left claims to fight against but then turns around and does exactly that. Or assumes because you are a certain gender or ethnicity that you speak for everyone in that group. Diversity has it's place and value in certain situations but it is not the end all be all nor should it be. Those that can't respect an organization be it political or otherwise because there aren't people "like me" speaks to their own bias. As for republicans being less supportive, much of that blame rests at the feet of the conservation organizations who choose to make everything political, who will criticize and fight republican administrations regardless of what they do rather than work with them. Or who choose to use their donations to elect liberal candidates every time. Take a look at the altpark movement as just one example. Sadly nearly all these groups ignore and ridicule conservatives who love the outdoors and our parks every bit as much as liberals. It is increasingly difficult for me to find organizations to donate to who wont use my money for their political purposes. Imagine how much more progress might be made partnering with both sides as it is inevitable that power will continue to change hands every few years. One final thought since we are on the subject of diversity. How many conservatives have you seen in your 30 years on the boards of these conservation organizations?
Wild places - you are completely mistaken about republicans and conservation. I am writing about the government and conservation, not conservation organizations. The republicans, in the last 20 years have not been as supportive of conservation and I mean in terms of acquisition of habitat for wildlife as democrats. It is a fact. The reason we do not see conservatives on the boards of conservation organizations is because they do not like to conserve (unless it is money).
argalite, and that is tragic that the GOP has taken that road because, as a somewhat conservative person, there is nothing I value more than protecting and preserving places that were here long before I was and will be here long after. Protecting wildlife habitat my family hunted on for generations before I came along should be a conservative value.
The GOP has mostly abandoned the tradition and heritage they helped create.
That's an easy one, wild, on a conservative on the board of a conservation organization: Susan LaPierre, co-chair of the Nat'l Rifle Assn Women's Leadership Forum and wife of Wayne LaPierre, NRA's vice-president. I'd say that's as conservative as you can get on a national conservation organization.
I'd assume there has to be some political conservatives on the board of Ducks Unlimited. However they have a specific reason for conservation, not that I have a problem with it.
Whoops, Susan LaPierre is on the board of the National Parks Foundation.
And to wild's point, there was a major uproar here when that happened. By the way, being a supporter of 2nd amendment rights does not necessarily make you a conservative. There are many Democratic members of the NRA as well as members of the Senate and Congress that support gun rights.
My answer of "Susan LaPierre is on the board of the National Parks Foundation" is only answering the original question from wild places: "How many conservatives have you seen in your 30 years on the boards of these conservation organizations?" To y_p_w, it is NOT debating conservatives on the board of Ducks Unlimited; I'm sure there are many conservatives on conservation boards and, furthermore, I think that's a good thing. To ecbuck, if you're insinuating that Susan LaPierre might not be a conservative, I'd say that you have a scoop.
That is total BS - like you there are plenty of conservatives that support protection of our land and water. What they don't support is overly burdensome regulations that have little if any positive impact but come at a large cost.
ecbuck,
What burdensome regulations? Be specific. Any regulation can be called burdensome.
Well the water rules that where just recinded is one good example. They protected little more than mud puddles and would have had a very negative impact on farmers and other industries if implemented
Hey ECBuck, just in case you're not aware of this, most of the people reading this website are probably more interested in clean air, clean water, wildlife preservation, keeping public lands in public ownership, protecting and enhancing America's national parks for present and future generations, etc. We're not so interested in your so-called "negative impact on farmers" or "other industries" priorities; we know what the corporate and industry priorities would be and those priorities would not align with most of the NPT priorities. Maybe your posts would get more 'likes' on a website that is anti-parks, anti-clean air, anti-clean water, anti-wildlife, anti-public lands, anti-anything that is trying to save our environment.
Those water rules were in place to prevent mainly agricultural wastes and chemicals from finding their way to larger bodies of water -- many of which are sources of drinking water for many Americans.
One of the oft-repeated propaganda messages of those who opposed the rules was a claim that even "dry washes" were protected. That's partially true, but the reason for that protection is that animal wastes, insecticides and other agriculturally produced contaminants often don't disintegrate easily. Phosphates, insect killing chemicals, pathogens from bovine and porcine intestinal tracts, and other contaminants which may take years to finally make their way down a dry wash in the western deserts remain in dormancy in those washes. They may move only a few feet each year as rains and melting snow flow down those washes when they are not "dry."
In a process that may require a decade or more, those substances slowly migrate from the fields and pastures and pig pens where they originated until they reach water bodies that we rely upon for culinary water, recreation, fishing, irrigation and other necessary uses that benefit all of us.
A prime example of this process is Utah Lake between Provo, Orem, and Saratoga Springs. It is a lake that has historically been clear, clean water. People living around the lake have enjoyed boating, fishing, picnicking, swimming -- and drinking.
But now, every summer for the last three or four years, Utah Lake has been beset by a foul and toxic algal bloom that has required the health department to close it to access. The smell has become more atrocious with every passing year, and an increasing number of people have become ill each year through contact with the water and its contents.
It's just one more in a very long list of short sighted environmental abuses caused by people whose profit margins might take a hit if they were required to exercise caution and actually do something to mitigate the effects of their use of chemicals, disposal of animal wastes, and to provide more careful disposal of water from storm drain systems.
It's a complex and potentially disastrous situation. But it's also one that HAS reasonable solutions -- IF people care enough to require that those solutions be put to use.
But, too often, MONEY dictates public policy.
Here are a couple of news clippings that pertain :
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/31/climate/trump-water-wotus.html
https://deq.utah.gov/communication/news/harmful-algal-bloom-utah-lake
https://deq.utah.gov/health-advisory-panel/harmful-algal-blooms-habs/uta...
https://www.sltrib.com/news/health/2018/06/12/health-warning-issued-afte...
https://fox13now.com/2018/08/22/lindon-marina-at-utah-lake-closed-due-to...
But, yeah, we all know this is just Fake News -- right?
Good job, Lee.
I was curious, so I used Google to seek some answers to some of my own questions about water pollution. Here are just a few of the things I found :
How much water pollution is in the US?
“Approximately 40% of the lakes in America are too polluted for fishing, aquatic life, or swimming.” “Each year 1.2 trillion gallons of untreated sewage, stormwater, and industrial waste are dumped into US water.”
What is the dirtiest lake in America?
Onondaga Lake in Syracuse, N.Y., has often been called the most polluted lake in America. It was hammered by a one-two punch: raw and partially treated sewage from the city and its suburbs, and a century's worth of industrial dumping.
What is the most polluted body of water in the United States?
Mississippi River. The Mississippi River is the second of the most polluted waterways in the United States, the Ohio River being the most polluted.
What is the leading source of water pollution in the US?
Much of this runoff flows to the sea, carrying with it agricultural fertilizers and pesticides. Eighty percent of pollution to the marine environment comes from the land. One of the biggest sources is called nonpoint source pollution, which occurs as a result of runoff.
Each of these had links attached to them, but they needed to be copied and pasted separately and it's already past my bedtime.
Yea, the Water Rules, or otherwise known as The Clean Water Act, passed in 1972 and to date, the water quality goals stated by Congress in the 1972 act have not been achieved by American society: "to make all U.S. waters fishable and swimmable by 1983;" "to have zero water pollution discharge by 1985;" "to prohibit discharge of toxic amounts of toxic pollutants".
So, if the original legislation didn't even come close to achieving the goals, does it make sense to make the rules less strong?
Lee, poor Utah county just cant catch a break. First it was Geneval Steel delivering poor air quality and now, agricultural and industrial runoff into Utah Lake.