What the headlines miss about Trump’s Utah monument decision
The debate is not about destroying public land, but about whether Washington should control so much of Utah from afar.
Judging from much of the media coverage, President Trump’s changes to two Utah national monuments amount to an environmental calamity. And if not an environmental calamity, it will threaten lands sacred to Native American tribes.
President Trump’s proclamations reduce Bears Ears National Monument from about 1.36 million acres to roughly 121,100 acres and Grand Staircase-Escalante from about 1.87 million acres to approximately 181,500 acres. They are both located in the southern part of the state.
The land removed from the monument boundaries remains federally owned public land and continues to receive protections under existing federal and state laws, but it will return to broader multiple-use management that can allow grazing, hunting, recreation, infrastructure work, timber harvesting, and resource development.
In a recent American Habits interview, Utah state Rep. Carl Albrecht explained how federal control of public lands affects rural communities:
Utah has a good Public Lands Policy Coordinating Office that has been working closely with the administration. We are starting to see some regulations streamlined through that office and through our Department of Environmental Quality.
As we mentioned, Utah has five national parks and many state parks. About 66% of the state is public land, whether it is managed by the Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, or another federal agency. In some of the counties I represent, more than 95% of the land is federally controlled. That makes it very difficult for local communities.
There is not much land available for local taxation. What little private land exists is often tied to agriculture or tourism because of the national parks. We have reduced Utah’s income tax rate 10 years in a row, and we would like to get to the point someday—especially with new development in areas like nuclear energy—where we could eliminate it entirely. But we cannot be like Florida or Texas overnight because our land base is so different.
Sen. Mike Lee and others in our federal delegation are working on permitting reform. At the state level, our federalism efforts, public lands office, and Department of Environmental Quality are also trying to make progress. We have been good stewards of the land, and we want reforms that recognize that.
People here care deeply about these places. We do not want someone coming in and taking away our favorite fishing hole or hunting area. We live here. We know the land, we use it, and we take care of it.
The last few times I was in Utah, even though we are told the stats, I was still surprised just how much of state land is controlled by the federal government. It helps when you can visualize it.
I feel like media stories I’ve seen are not highlighting the fact there is federal-state cooperation continuing with this order. And it makes sense given that federal ownership should not always mean exclusive control from Washington. On lands that do not require the highest level of federal protection, states and local communities deserve more flexibility to balance conservation with responsible use and economic opportunity.
Utah Gov. Spencer Cox also offers helpful context on the proclamations and the Antiquities Act in a statement on his official website. Utah Attorney General Derek Brown offered up some comments that get at the heart of federalism:
The long-term answer isn’t found in which president happens to occupy the White House. The answer lies in honoring the textual limits the Antiquities Act already places on monument sizes. Utah will keep pressing until that’s the reality, not just the ideal.
—Ray Nothstine
— The Federalism Beat