Posted on 02/02/2002 5:13:26 AM PST by brityank
Utah governor sells out State's sovereignty
By Charles Bloomer: 02.02.02Utah governor Mike Leavitt, in his State of the State address last week, announced that he will formally ask President Bush to declare another national monument in Utah. Leavitt wants the federal government to take control of 620,000 acres of the San Rafael Swell, located in southeastern Utah.
Gov. Leavitt opposed the creation of the 1.7 million acre Grand Staircase - Escalante National Monument in 1996 when President Clinton created the monument through an Executive Order. Gov. Leavitt's opposition was based largely on the fact that Clinton had unilaterally declared federal control of Utah without consulting with Utah officials or citizens. According to Leavitt, the desire to declare a monument of San Rafael Swell is different. "This time it is being proposed by locals, with sufficient notice and additional discussion before acting", the governor said.
No doubt the San Rafael Swell is a scenic wilderness site. With "sufficient notice and additional discussion", as well as local support, there is obviously a desire to protect the area and maintain its natural beauty.
But the governor's action raises some questions: Why designate San Rafael Swell a National Monument? Why not make it a State Monument? Why is the governor ceding control of any of his State's land to the federal government? Is there not a process within the Utah political system to protect this area?
The answers, of course, can be found in politics. Governors are first and foremost politicians, who enjoy and want to keep the privileges and power that come with elected office. In order to stay in office, a governor must keep voters happy, and an easy way to make voters happy is to give them something that someone else pays for.
The Utah governor is no stranger to this kind of political ploy. After the Grand Staircase - Escalante land grab, the governor initiated lawsuits in federal court to reverse the Executive Order creating the monument. Gov. Leavitt later dropped the lawsuits in exchange for $50 million, 139,000 acres of federal land, plus mineral rights.
Gov. Leavitt knows that if he designates San Rafael Swell a State Monument, he will have to include the cost of management and maintenance in his State budget. State control over the monument will mean an increase in State expenses, taken from the voters in the form of taxes. To cover this new expense, the governor will either have to raise taxes or cut money from other State programs. Any politically savvy governor knows that increasing taxes and cutting programs are not the ways to endear himself to constituents.
The solution to the dilemma is to shift the blame. By asking that the site be declared a National Monument, the governor shifts the expense of the monument to the federal government, thereby preserving his own budget. The cost of managing and maintaining the monument is borne by all American taxpayers. The "bad guy" in this scenario becomes the tax-hungry federal government, while the governor portrays himself as the "good guy", having satisfied the local stakeholders by protecting the land. It's a classic free lunch.
Unfortunately, lunch is not free. Actions such as this weaken the State's position vis-à-vis the federal government and further weaken the concept of States' right embodied in the Tenth Amendment of the US Constitution. In his short-sighted political manipulations, Gov. Leavitt is selling his State's sovereignty in exchange for a place at the federal trough.
Governors, particularly Western governors, frequently complain about the federal intrusion into the control of open lands, federal land grabs, and unacceptable regulations that deny States use of land within those States, land that constitutionally belongs to the States, not the federal government. As they complain, though, they have their hands held out continuously, seeking federal money to help them retain their elected positions.
State governors should be a tenacious first line of defense for States' Rights and the sovereignty that the Constitution guarantees. Governors will never force a return of respect for the concept of a federal republic as long as they are willing to sell out themselves and their States in order to get a hand out from the federal government.
Governor Leavitt should not let his short-sighted politics lead him to violate his State's sovereignty for a few federal dollars. If Utah wants San Rafael Swell to be preserved, Utah should declare it a State Monument.
© 2002 SierraTimes.com
A Subsidiary of J.J. Johnson Enterprises, Inc.
Ping.
Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument: Conservation and ...
Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument: Conservation
and Controversy. Petrified Woody's ...
Description: "This million-plus acre area needs protection from uncontrolled development, but at what cost?...
-Four Years Later, Locals Still Decry Clinton Monument --
-Coalgate--that ugly Lippo-Klink-Redford connection to tyranny--
-Clinton's Utah deal not justified-WND story--
Energy and Mineral Resources, Grand Staircase - Escalante ...
Utah Geological Survey. ... A Preliminary Assessment of Energy and Mineral Resources
within the Grand Staircase - Escalante National Monument. ...
To paraphrase Daffy Duck, "consequences, schmonsequences, as long as we're rich, popular and powerful."
I agree with the tone of the article [yee gads another "park"], but the author assumes that the 620,000 acres wasn't already under federal control. My best guess is that at least 85% is already BLM Lands.
The more see of Leavitt, the more I think that he would have gotten along very well with Nelson Rockefeller(sp?).
BTW, I believe that the San Rafel Swell is in about the middle of the State, about where Interstate 70 cuts across, not in the South-East.
Me either I was just pinging for your reference.
Um, I'm not seeing anything wrong with this. The locals have input, they're declaring the scenic areas a monument, the area does need to be protected. I don't have any problem with this, since the local people have been the moving force behind this. There is a ninety day public input period too. What I object to is the fed govt barging in and making lands monuments without any local output. I'm donning my flameproof jacket right now.
I don't think anyone disagrees that there should be some way that the local folk can create whatever they want within their own enclaves; the problem comes from asking the folks outside those enclaves to pay for their good intentions. I don't know much about Utah's politics or budget constraints, but it appears that Mr. Bloomer has some valid points. Gov. Leavitt is passing the costs off to the US, instead of funding it within the state. To do that, he has to give your land away. As my Dad said, "Buy land; they're not making any more of it." The Feds already unconstitutionally own too much of your state, why would you want them to own even more? Cheers.
The area, one of the most BEAUTIFUL in the State, is already controlled by the BLM.
But by creating a another National Park...they would lose their ability to graze cattle etc.
Gov. Leavitt is betraying the locals...just like he eventually did in the Grand Staircase-Escalante mess...where he PROMISED the locals he would fight for them...and then caved when fighting for the locals became too costly.
redrock
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.