The Public Lands Initiative (PLI) was introduced in July 2016 by Representative Rob Bishop, and if it had passed, would have determined how a large portion of public lands in southeastern Utah would be managed. Public lands in Utah are a hot topic of debate. Prior to 2017, 67% of Utah were under federal control. This was an attempt to transfer control of federal land in Utah to the State. In 2012, Utah introduced legislation that mandated the federal government give management of public lands back to the state. The prevalent belief behind this push is that Utah will be a better steward to manage and protect the land via proper development of energy corridors and the creation of commercial/recreational opportunities. The Public Lands Initiative was designed to quickly resolve land disputes while supporting other legislation attempts to localize public land control. PLI was additionally a reaction against the Bears Ears National Monument petition that called for executive interference to protect land in San Juan county. In this area, the PLI authorized a 4.6 million acre designation for two conservation areas, a right for the state to extract minerals and develop land for commercial/recreational use, a limit on executive powers to create or change national monuments, and a limit on the number of tribal representation . There are issues within the Public Lands Initiative that were not resolved during the time that the Public Lands Initiative was active that should be addressed before adequate direction can be found for future public lands legislation. Limited Input from Local Native Tribes It is a very difficult and a very complex task to generate effective public lands legislation in a short amount of time while including all of the input from passionate stakeholders in this debate.
…show more content…
Utah is a very conservative state and the Republican party supports limited federal oversight. While the Public Lands Initiative cites itself as a fair negotiated process that is driven by local opinion from Utah counties, the initiative does little to accommodate tribal input. Utah has a history of overriding tribal sovereignty as exemplified in 2005 when the Skull Valley Goshute Tribe applied to temporary store radioactive waste on their reservation and was blocked from gaining access to waste routes due to a targeted legislation from the State of Utah . Since 2009, the Intertribal Coalition has been the main opposition against PLI and they call for the President of the United States to utilize the Antiquities Act to provide protection that they feel the State of Utah and the commission behind the Public Lands Initiative isn’t properly addressing. More Broader Democratic Discussions In addition to the lack of input from the local tribes that have a viable connection to this unprotected land, there are multiple polls that show the majority of Utah voters not supporting the Public Lands Iniative. …show more content…
A survey, taken by The Pew Charitable Trusts, found that 55 percent of Utahs supported the national monument designation . The Public Lands Initiative only took feedback from counties that participated through its outreach and website. Counties should a voice in this legislation, but they shouldn’t be the only interests driving this initiative. There are multiple parties that don’t include tribal parties that have a stake in public lands. To end decades of public land debate, there is a need for a different approach to adequately address problems in public land management because not everyone is given proper representation in the Public Lands Initiative. The Public Lands Initiative didn’t pass through Congress because it was driven by a select number of counties and not a balance of all interest holders. Fear of Federal Control An underlying assumption throughout Utah’s grapple for public land control is that the federal government is evil and this fear has affected the dialogue available about public land control. It is not an irrational idea to suggest that in some cases it may be better for federal management of public lands versus state control of public lands. In Utah, management of water laws has been a mess since statehood. In regards to what Utah can control as demonstrated by water rights, there is a systematic lack of planning that has implications for future generations. Preserving lands as a sustainable practice is not an ethic promoted in the Utah legislature or in the counties that give input to public
Utah is a very conservative state and the Republican party supports limited federal oversight. While the Public Lands Initiative cites itself as a fair negotiated process that is driven by local opinion from Utah counties, the initiative does little to accommodate tribal input. Utah has a history of overriding tribal sovereignty as exemplified in 2005 when the Skull Valley Goshute Tribe applied to temporary store radioactive waste on their reservation and was blocked from gaining access to waste routes due to a targeted legislation from the State of Utah . Since 2009, the Intertribal Coalition has been the main opposition against PLI and they call for the President of the United States to utilize the Antiquities Act to provide protection that they feel the State of Utah and the commission behind the Public Lands Initiative isn’t properly addressing. More Broader Democratic Discussions In addition to the lack of input from the local tribes that have a viable connection to this unprotected land, there are multiple polls that show the majority of Utah voters not supporting the Public Lands Iniative. …show more content…
A survey, taken by The Pew Charitable Trusts, found that 55 percent of Utahs supported the national monument designation . The Public Lands Initiative only took feedback from counties that participated through its outreach and website. Counties should a voice in this legislation, but they shouldn’t be the only interests driving this initiative. There are multiple parties that don’t include tribal parties that have a stake in public lands. To end decades of public land debate, there is a need for a different approach to adequately address problems in public land management because not everyone is given proper representation in the Public Lands Initiative. The Public Lands Initiative didn’t pass through Congress because it was driven by a select number of counties and not a balance of all interest holders. Fear of Federal Control An underlying assumption throughout Utah’s grapple for public land control is that the federal government is evil and this fear has affected the dialogue available about public land control. It is not an irrational idea to suggest that in some cases it may be better for federal management of public lands versus state control of public lands. In Utah, management of water laws has been a mess since statehood. In regards to what Utah can control as demonstrated by water rights, there is a systematic lack of planning that has implications for future generations. Preserving lands as a sustainable practice is not an ethic promoted in the Utah legislature or in the counties that give input to public