How Utah Republicans are undoing the Grand Staircase-Escalante management plan

SALT LAKE CITY — The Utah congressional delegation took steps this week to overturn the current Grand Staircase–Escalante National Monument management plan under the Congressional Review Act.

Rep. Celeste Maloy, R-Utah, and Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, introduced a "resolution of disapproval" in their respective houses of Congress which will trigger a vote to change how the monument is managed.

"Grand Staircase-Escalante is worthy of protection. It's one of the last places that still feels truly untouched by modern life. But its future cannot be dictated by distant officials who will never bear the costs of their decisions," Lee wrote in an op-ed for the Deseret News.

"The Congressional Review Act exists for moments like this. When agencies impose rules with generational consequences without the consent of the American people or their representatives, Congress has the authority and the responsibility to review them and ensure that the people are not simply presented with a fait accompli."

Critics, however, see the CRA as a heavy-handed way of legislating. Passed in 1996, the somewhat obscure law gives Congress oversight over rules implemented by various federal agencies, such as the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture, and the ability to overturn them. The law requires that all rules to which it applies be submitted prior to being enacted and, if the CRA is successfully used, prevents new rules that are substantially similar to the overturned ones from ever being implemented again.

With resource management plans, there are already several existing pathways to alter or change them that don't require congressional oversight. They're implemented often. As such, applying the CRA to land-use plans — something that necessitated a novel approval from the Government Accountability Office as those plans aren't generally submitted at all — was unprecedented until last fall, when Congress passed bills overturning established plans in Alaska, Montana and North Dakota.

Legal scholars and former Republican BLM director candidates called such applications of the law "nuclear," "using a chainsaw to perform surgery," and potentially creating a "Wild West" of land-use planning.

Those concerns stem from the unclear implications of the legalese in the review act. Once passed, does the BLM revert to prior land-use plans? That is what Maloy said was her goal in a statement to Deseret News earlier this year. But even if it's clear that the BLM cannot use old plans, there's no language stipulating exactly what it should do if they're overturned.

Another lingering concern is whether the use of the CRA in management plans calls into question the legality of all currently enacted land-use plans. Only four have been reviewed, so there's not yet a clear precedent.

Those legal uncertainties are in addition to the passionate concerns that conservationists and local stakeholders have regarding changes to what Steve Bloch, legal director and attorney for the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, called the "crown jewel of America's system of federal public lands," referring to Grand Staircase-Escalante.

Not least of which is that the prior management plan was written for a monument 900,000 acres smaller than it is today.

Even so, the Utah delegation is clear that change is necessary and that the CRA is the best way to do it. Congress now has 60 legislative days to vote on the resolution of disapproval. Such legislation requires a simple majority in the Senate. Last year, the three prior CRA resolutions were passed. The resolution does not eliminate or change the size of the monument.

Why Utah leaders want a new management plan

In a joint press release, Utah's all-Republican congressional delegation argued for overturning Grand Staircase-Escalante's current management plan, which is technically called a "monument management plan" due to its protected status.

Their broad arguments against the 2025 plan are that its process did not properly consider local and state input. They suggest that it was imposed by the federal government during the Biden administration.

"Our lands are best managed and most appreciated by those who live closest to them. Unfortunately, the Biden administration's overreaching management plan for the Grand Staircase–Escalante National Monument clearly does not reflect the full spectrum of voices who live and work in the area," said Sen. John Curtis, R-Utah. "This resolution will help ensure that future management plans better serve the long-term interests of Utahns, not distant federal agencies."

When the management plan was being considered, Utah Gov. Spencer Cox's office sent a letter to the BLM pointing out a series of issues it thought were not resolved. The letter expressed appreciation for the state input that the BLM did include, but frustration that much of it was excluded. The BLM failed to protect Utah's "access to public roads, existing and potential mining claims, grazing rights, private property rights, etc," according to the letter.

Another complaint that Utah's legislators alluded to is that the current plan is too restrictive for the communities that recreate and rely on the monument. That same letter detailed some of those restrictions, such as prioritizing conservation over mineral extraction with sustained yields, as well as limitations on grazing. For recreation, it addressed off-highway vehicles, motorized recreation and permitted dispersed camping.

In Kane County, one of two counties the monument straddles, commissioners see the potential for some of the points the Utah delegation took umbrage with to be addressed.

"With our county being engulfed by 80% monument, the crushing restrictions of the 2025 rules severely impact local families and business owners," the Kane County Commission wrote in a statement. "We are overjoyed to hear of these efforts to return power to our duly elected federal delegation."

Read the rest at Deseret News.

Related topics