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
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.
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 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
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?