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.
Comments
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?
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.
Whoops, Susan LaPierre is on the board of the National Parks Foundation.
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.