Grand Staircase-Escalante

Western land issues are some of the most hotly debated political issues today. The political intricacies pit Western state governments against the federal government, pits Republicans against Democrats, the West against the East, environmentalists against those who make their living off the resources of the land, and the rural against the urban. Recently, with the Clinton Administration’s seemingly desperate attempts to set aside land as national monuments and parks, the rhetoric has increased. Most of these proposed lands are in the West, especially in Utah, Arizona, Colorado, Montana, California and Oregon (Kemp, 2000a, p. A01 ). It seems that he is trying to leave a legacy other than the Monica Lewinsky scandal and now failed peace attempts in the Middle East. At least, that is the view that the rural Republicans in the West view all these national monument appointments.

The appointment of Grand Staircase-Escalante to national monument status is no different. It was and is hotly debated. However, unlike some monuments, this one was designated without so much as a by-your-leave by Utah locals, public officials, or Congressional delegation. Interestingly enough, this was not the only case of such a thing happening. The Grand Staircase-Escalante was a surprise announcement, and the designation took place at the Grand Canyon. The Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument involved some participation, but it still happened over the protests of locals (Kemp, 2000a, p. A01). In October of 1999 President Bill Clinton announced a ban on development on 40 million acres of roadless forests. Even though most of these forests are in the West, the announcement was made in Virginia (Davidson, 1999, p. A01). No details were discussed with the delegations of affected states, so many didn’t even know how much of the land within their borders would be closed to development.

On September 18, 1996 the Grand Staircase-Escalante was designated by President Bill Clinton. He did it with the power given to the office of President by the 1906 Antiquities Act. This piece of legislation allows the President to set aside land for preservation for historical or scientific purposes (Presidential Proclamation 6920, 1996). The Act does require this land to be owned or controlled by the United States Government. By virtue of the fact that Utah is within the United Sates, the government controls the land. However, most of the land currently part of the 1.9 million acre monument was government owned and used as public lands even before the appointment. This is not unusual. A look at a BLM map quickly shows that most of the West is owned by the federal government.

The book Crossing the Next Meridian uses quite a few land use case studies, but because it was published in 1992 it doesn’t contain information about the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. But it was this book that described some of the mistrust that the more rural members of Western states have of the government. It also talked about the old laws that govern the West, and gave me more insight as to the way we are raised here in the West. It illustrated that those in rural areas are truly living in a different world; a world of cattle and making a living off the resources of the land- turning these resources into the cash that runs their small town economies. When looking at the political spin that came, and is still coming, from the designation of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, I used mostly articles from the Deseret News. These were acquired on-line. I also looked on Bill Orton’s webpage and the Grand Staircase-Escalante link from the BLM website. These sources began to help me unravel the often tangled knot of politics that governs not only this one particular case, but represents the battle for public lands in the West.

When the details of the monument announcement were finally given (at 2 a.m. the day of the designation), the mostly Republican delegation immediately rejected the idea. They had been hearing rumors of such a thing for eleven days, but had been assured that an appointment was not imminent (Davidson, 1999, A11). These details included concessions obtained by Democratic Congressman Bill Orton (Orton, 2000). He didn’t find out any earlier than the rest of the Utah delegation, despite being of the same party as the President. Because it was a compromise attained by a Democrat from a Democrat, the Republicans dubbed it as “meaningless” (Orton, 2000).

Orton objected to the monument, but when it became evident that it didn’t matter, he moved to gain the best protection for his constituents. Being a Democrat cost him his seat in Congress when challenger Matt Cannon played the Grand Staircase-Escalante card. He contended that Bill Orton had to have known because he was one of Clinton’s fellow Democrats (Davidson 2000a, p. B03). In fact, other rural Democrats in the West have begun using his name as a verb. A representative from California said that he had been “Ortonized” when he lost his seat to a Republican contender after the designation of the Giant Sequoia National Monument (Davidson, 2000b, p. A15). Western Democrats, shedding the traditional Democratic stance of environmentalism in favor of representing their constituents, are being sacrificed in the name of Bill Clinton’s legacy.

The Republicans were determined (as they still are) to get the designation overturned. The rural community was so against the federal government that the commissioners of Garfield County rejected $500,000 from the government to help defray the cost of maintaining the monument (Orton, 2000). The taxpayers have been bearing the burden ever since. Unfortunately for them, this doesn’t appear likely.

Politics again enter the stage. The political game is all about image, and today it is “in” to care about the nation’s treasures. Especially for the more moderate Republicans who want to be elected in a more “middle of the road” nation. Here comes the West against East struggle. Republicans in the West don’t have too much to worry about as far as retaining power in concerned. In the East, however, where there is a little more to worry about, Republicans need to be careful not to come across as “anti-environment.” Representative Jim Hansen, who tried to have the appointment reversed, didn’t get very far (Davidson, 2000b, p. A15). Even if the measure did actually pass, Clinton would have just vetoed it, and it was highly unlikely that it would receive the necessary 2/3 majority to override.

Even with the new administration, the success of the effort to rescind national monument status is in doubt. Jim Hansen vows that it is a priority, but he will need more backing than just the Western Republicans. Vice President-elect Dick Cheney suggested that the national monument designation be reviewed, but President-elect Bush noted that it would be a difficult thing to do (Kemp, 2000b, p. A01). With the House and the Senate as close as they are, even with most of the Eastern Republicans helping out, such an attempt would be futile.

Easterners don’t seem to care a whole lot about the people of the West anyway. They will have their places to live in the East and they can come to the West to vacation. In the West they will get a taste of the different and uniquely beautiful. Of those who do decide to stay in the West, many have government jobs. Or hold jobs that do things that don’t exactly have them living in parts of the state where the way of life is by the use of natural resources. Quite a few of the activists are even supported by PACs and donations. That way they can carry on with their cause without getting another job. These perceptions of those who oversee the management of lands and those who are campaigning for more wilderness to be set aside breed distrust in those who have roots on the land going back over 100 years.

Utah Governor Mike Leavitt was initially dead-set against the monument, but as it became clear that no action of his or any other Utahn would change things, he began to negotiate. He even began talks about land in Utah’s west desert (Kemp, 2000c, p. B01). This action put him out of favor with rural land dwellers, who now see him as a traitor of sorts (Dillon & Bernick, 2000, p. A01). This very land issue is what forced a primary in this year’s election. Leavitt for the first time found himself actually losing in some of the rural counties (Dillon & Bernick, 2000, p. A01). Those counties, however, didn’t even dent his victory in the Republican primary. Those who live on the Wasatch Front aren’t all that concerned with land use issues. They live in urban areas. And this is precisely what those in rural Utah contend. They say that Mike Leavitt has spent too much time in the political arena up north. They say he has abandoned his rural Utah roots (Dillon & Bernick, 2000, p. A01).

Most rural Utahns are feeling rather discouraged by these events. It seems unlikely that anything they want or suggest will be considered. With the federal government creating new regulations and setting aside land over local protest, and the feelings that the state government isn’t doing enough to stand up for Utahns, many feel like there is nothing they can do (Spangler, 1999, B02). Some counties feel like they are being backed into corners. After all, without the ability to mine or log, and ranching being forced into extinction, what need is there for access roads? Even the defiant Garfield County has folded (Spangler, 1999, B02). It seems like there’s nothing for it but tourism.

There seems to be no real solution to the problem. Most of the problems are due to political maneuvering and distrust. Compromise only inflames those living in rural areas. Of course, in the political arena these rural communities really aren’t that important. They don’t have the numbers or organization to have any true political clout. Much of the concessions made to these small towns have been made out of generosity. In reality, these federal political forces could completely alienate rural Utah and feel no truly significant backlash.

In many ways, Grand Staircase-Escalante has even shaped some of the politics of the future despite the relative unimportance of rural southern Utah. The federal government is promising to allow more local oversight and input, Democrats are less likely to be voted for in rural areas, and new politically active conservative groups are springing up. One of them is People USA. This group seeks fewer environmental restrictions and more local control over public lands (Kemp, 1999, p. A01). However, it is clear that there are many factors to consider in the politics of Grand Staircase-Escalante. But it can safely be concluded that it is all about image. Everyone seems to be trying to look good. Everyone but those who want to use the land. The rural Utahns seem to approach the politics of this monument in a straightforward way, though very conservative. The sentiment is “let us do our thing to keep our traditional way of life.”

Bibliography
Davidson, L. (13 October 1999). Clinton’s new Utah shock. Deseret News, p. A01. [On-line].
Available WWW: http://www.deseretnews.com.

Davidson, L. (12 January 2000a). Orton wants ‘to see corpse.’ Deseret News, p. B03. [On-line].
Available WWW: http://www.deseretnews.com.

Davidson, L. (20 September 2000b). Westerners paying price for trying to burn Clinton. Deseret News, p. A15. [On-line]. Available WWW: http://www.deseretnews.com.

Dillon, L., & Bernick, B. Leavitt is ‘out’ in rural Utah. Deseret News, p. A01. [On-line].
Available WWW: http://www.deseretnews.com.

Kemp, D. (14 November 1999). Showdown in Escalante. Deseret News, p. A01. [On-line].
Available WWW: http://www.deseretnews.com.

Kemp, D. (27 July 2000a). Third monument’s a charm. Deseret News, p. A01. [On-line].
Available WWW: http://www.deseretnews.com.

Kemp, D. (25 August 2000b). Cheney’s monument stance cheered. Deseret News, p. A01.
[On-line]. Available WWW: http://www.deseretnews.com.

Kemp, D. (16 September 2000c). 4 years pass; discord hasn’t. Deseret News, p. B01. [On-line].
Available WWW: http://www.deseretnews.com.

Orton, Bill. (2000). [On-line]. Available WWW: http://www.billorton.com.

Presidential Proclamation 6920. (18 September 1996). [On-line]. Available WWW: ut.blm.gov/monument.

Spangler, J. (6 January 1999). Southern Utahns stay away from monument meetings. Deseret
News, p. B02. [On-line]. Available WWW: http://www.deseretnews.com.