The Proposed Grand Canyon Watershed National Monument: a Monumental Mistake?

POLICY BRIEF The Proposed Grand Canyon Watershed National Monument: A Monumental Mistake? Introduction Arizona has more national parks and monuments framework in partnership among state and federal than any other state in the country. Between lands agencies, resulting in effective and productive owned and managed by the federal government wilderness, resource, and wildlife management. and those it holds in trust for the Indian tribes, al- When the Secretary of the Interior withdrew most 70% of all land in Arizona is under the control almost one million acres of Arizona’s land from of the federal government. Privately-owned land mining development in 2012—a move that was is the foundation of our state’s economic engine, opposed by Senator John McCain and then-Sena- yet less than 20% of land in Arizona is privately tor Jon Kyl along with other members of Arizona’s owned. As such, Arizona depends on the multiple use designation of federal lands and a strong state-federal land management partnership for its 70% of all land in Arizona is under the economic health, and for most of Arizona’s history control of the federal government that multiple-use partnership has worked. Less than 20% of land in Arizona is President Obama is now considering a proposal to privately owned further limit the multiple-use mandate on Arizona’s lands by using a more than 100-year old law to The Grand Canyon Watershed National designate 1.7 million acres of northern Arizona as Monument would designate another the Grand Canyon Watershed National Monument. 1.7 million acres of Arizona as federal land Until 2012, the majority of those 1.7 million acres were successfully managed under a multiple-use Arizona Chamber Foundation • Prosper Foundation 1 POLICY BRIEF The Proposed Grand Canyon Watershed National Monument: A Monumental Mistake? congressional delegation—he upset that framework, undermining the important state-federal The proposed Grand Canyon partnership that had previously characterized land Watershed National Monument management in Arizona. The proposed monument would encompass 1.7 million acres designation will even further limit the lands avail- of northern Arizona. This single able for multiple use, drastically reducing public presidential designation would access, impeding efficient land management, and representing unwarranted and unwanted federal double the amount of acreage in overreach. Arizona designated as a national monument, and would include In addition, the proposed monument designation most of Arizona north of the Grand would break the spirit of a historic compromise on wilderness designations and multiple land use pol- Canyon and a significant area icy that culminated in the Arizona Wilderness Act between Flagstaff and the Grand of 1984. The Act, which will be explored in greater Canyon National Park boundary. detail in a future Foundation paper, designated over 1.1 million acres of wilderness across Arizona and, at the same time, released an additional Congress and the stakeholders involved that the 540,000 acres of federal land for multiple-use de- low-impact method of breccia pipe uranium velopment.1 The Act represents the “gold standard mining occurring still today north of Grand Canyon of stakeholder collaboration and bipartisan com- National Park did not threaten the newly created promise,” allowing “sustainable uranium mining to wilderness areas or the Grand Canyon itself. As co-exist with the protection of some of Arizona’s such, much of the Arizona Strip was excluded from most treasured natural resources.” 2 The stakehold- wilderness designation, and all stakeholders in- ers involved in that historic process included the volved fully expected that the future development Reagan Administration, members of the Arizona of those lands would be governed by the land congressional delegation, the State of Arizona, the management planning process. Moving forward federal Bureau of Land Management, the mining with monument designation now would cast industry, environmental groups, and others. With aside that historic compromise and undermine the respect to the Act’s treatment of federal lands collaborative state and federal land management on the Arizona Strip, it was well understood by process that Arizona has long enjoyed. I. The Antiquities Act and the Proposed Grand Canyon Watershed National Monument The Antiquities Act of 1906 authorizes the particular scientific or historic interest, and espe- President to unilaterally proclaim relatively small cially to prevent the looting of archaeological and tracts of land owned or managed by the federal Native American sites. 3 government as national monuments without input from Congress or the affected states. The Act was However, presidential monument designations originally intended to enable presidents to quickly have long been controversial, for reasons in- protect federal lands and resources that contain cluding the size of the areas designated, types of historic landmarks, structures, and objects of resources they are claimed to protect, inclusion Arizona Chamber Foundation • Prosper Foundation 2 POLICY BRIEF The Proposed Grand Canyon Watershed National Monument: A Monumental Mistake? of nonfederal lands within monument boundar- Monument would encompass 1.7 million acres of ies, and the lack of transparency in presidential northern Arizona. This single presidential desig- designations and limited opportunity for public nation would double the amount of acreage in participation and input, especially from the local Arizona designated as a national monument, and community affected.4 Although the Act requires would include most of Arizona north of the Grand any monument designation to set aside “the Canyon and a significant area between Flagstaff smallest area compatible with the proper care and and the Grand Canyon National Park boundary.7 management of the objects to be protected,”5 The total proposed monument area is larger than there are few if any checks to ensure that mon- the state of Delaware, which would make it the ument designations adhere to this limitation. For nation’s second largest on-land national monu- example, in 1978 President Jimmy Carter used ment.8 Most lands in the proposed monument the Antiquities Act to designate 11 million acres of designation area are currently managed in a multi- Alaska wilderness the Wrangell-St. Elias National use framework by the Arizona Game and Fish Monument in the face of fierce opposition by Department in partnership with the Bureau of Land Alaskans, including Alaska Senator Mike Gravel and Management and U.S. Forest Service, but the area other state and local leaders.6 also includes nearly 64,000 acres of State Trust land and an additional 28,000 acres of privately The proposed Grand Canyon Watershed National held land.9 Arizona Chamber Foundation • Prosper Foundation 3 POLICY BRIEF The Proposed Grand Canyon Watershed National Monument: A Monumental Mistake? II. Local Agents, Not Those in Washington, Are the Best Stewards of Arizona’s Land Arizona, home of the Saguaro Cactus and Environmental Protection Agency into western Ponderosa Pine, Sonoran Desert and 210 named rivers, including the Animas River in Colorado, is mountain ranges, is a quintessential western state: another example of a situation in which unneces- characterized by picture-perfect vistas and inde- sary federal involvement proved problematic. On pendent citizens with a long-held appreciation August 5, 2015, federal EPA agents caused three for the outdoors. The western way of life is epit- million gallons of acid mine water and heavy met- omized in Arizona, where generations have lived, als to flow into rivers in Colorado, New Mexico, worked, and recreated in harmony with the natural and Utah, threatening Arizona’s rivers as well. A environment. Ranching families that have lived in report by the Department of Interior found that Arizona since the time of statehood still graze their the incident was both “preventable” and “‘emblem- cattle on Arizona’s high grasslands and generations atic’ of agencies’ inconsistent and deeply flawed of sportsmen hunt Arizona’s elk and deer, working approaches to reopening shuttered mines.” 10 The within the confines of Arizona Game and Fish EPA has come under fire for its slow response and regulations to responsibly manage wildlife to the attempt to downplay the environmental damage, benefit of all species. which could ultimately cost taxpayers as much as $28 billion over the years to remediate. 11 Some, in- The idea that regulators in Washington are in the cluding the Navajo Nation, worry that heavy metals best position to exclusively manage Arizona’s land may be present in waterways for decades. and natural resources, without state and local input and collaboration, would sound laughable Given the disappointing mismanagement of im- to most people in Arizona. Yet that is exactly what portant western issues, it is clear that Washington, will happen if President Obama moves forward on its own, is not the best steward of Arizona’s with the proposed Grand Canyon Watershed land and natural resources. But should the mon- National Monument, sweeping nearly 2 million ument designation proceed, the Department acres of northern Arizona under exclusive federal of Interior—based in Washington—would obtain control with virtually no input, oversight, or in- exclusive control of the area within the monument volvement from Arizona citizens and their elected representatives. Given the disappointing More controversial policies are imposed when

Load more