OCR Text |
Show HINCKLEY JOURNAL OF POLITICS 2002/2003 the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance in Cedar City said, "I do understand the betrayal local communities feel, but these lands belong to everyone" (Kemp, 2000). ONE PERSON'S WILDERNESS, ANOTHER PERSON'S ROAD Rural residents claim SUWA uses the 1864 Mining Law to deceive others and misrepresent the actual facts at hand. At a press conference on June 4, 1997, Emery County Commissioner Randy Johnson said: I am reminded of Abe Lincoln's astute observation that it is possible to fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time, but it is not possible to fool all of the people all of the time. I hope all of you are aware that SUWA is fooling some of the people all of the time. These are primarily their members, but it also includes anyone else who reads their newsletter and other internal publications, such as action alerts, and believes what they read (Utah Association of Counties 1997, 2). Johnson went on to state that SUWA has "habitually and constantly" misled people with regard to R.S. 2477. For example, he said that SUWA tries to sell people the idea that as many as 5000 new roads could be bulldozed in Utah because of R.S. 2477, when in fact no additional roads can be built because R.S. 2477 was repealed in 1976 (Utah Association of Counties 1997, 2). According to Johnson, it is also deceiving to claim that R.S 2477 is an antiquated, outdated statute that is ruining our last pristine lands, when in fact the statute was reaffirmed and upheld only 24 years ago (Utah Association of Counties, 3). SUWA claims, on the other hand: The one-sentence, 131-year-old statute is being used as a loophole by southern Utah counties to assert the right to build a spider web of roads..... Why is this obsolete statute such a problem? Because even though the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) repealed it in 1976, the repeal was subject to valid existing rights. Southern Utah counties are claiming that they have valid existing rights-of-way that entitle them to grade and pave trails, and they are targeting places included in the citizens' proposal for wilderness. These wilderness foes will argue that these rough, unmaintained "roads" disqualify surrounding public lands for wilderness protection (Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance 2000c). When FLPMA was enacted 24 years ago, all R.S. 2477 claims prior to 1976 were recognized and reaffirmed by Congress. It is true, therefore, that no new roads can be built under this law. The question becomes; what constitutes a legitimate road? The counties argue that the R.S. 2477 statute simply gave right-of-way for construction of "highways" to the public; the term "road" was never used. One may assume that a "highway" is the same thing as a road, but in 1866, modern transportation systems were a distant develop- ment of the future, and a highway may well have been a two-track wagon trail. These rights-of-way existed from 1864 to!976 and are still valid under FLPMA, according to state and local officials (San Juan County, 10). Revised Statute 2477 of The Mining Law of 1864 does not say that a right-of-way has to be a paved highway, a maintained road, or an area that does not cross a wash or riparian habitat. Much to the dismay of SUWA, locals continue to press the idea that even a small two-track trail going "nowhere" is a valid existing right if it was present before 1976. As long as a claim existed prior to that date, counties argue, most forms of these rights-of-way are valid. Furthermore, maintaining existing roads that do qualify as valid existing rights is legal and will continue to be legal - even if the road is in the middle of wilderness. In the last few years, the BLM has attempted to close roads going into Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) and other potential areas that they feel merit protection. These actions have greatly irritated local Utahns who strongly believe they have a legal right to use all R.S. 2477 roads. The counties contend the BLM has attempted to use "ex post facto standards" to define rights-of-way, despite the fact that they have no direction from Congress or legal authority to approve some roads and outlaw others. FLPMA instructed the BLM to inventory wilderness, but it never gave them any instruction or guidance in defining what constitutes a valid right-of-way and what does not (San Juan County, 11). Conversely, SUWA and the Sierra Club contend that in the absence of additional congressional legislation, the federal circuit court has given a definition of R.S. 2477 roads in the case of Sierra Club v. Model. In that case, R.S. 2477 roads were defined as "major components of the transportation systems in most western states" (Sierra Club v. Model, 1988, 1078). SUWAs concern is that local interests may cut new roads and claim they are legal rights-of-way under R.S. 2477. They also contend that wilderness opponents have attempted and continue to attempt to use this tactic to disqualify land from wilderness consideration. Politically, it is to SUWAs advantage to continue to portray R.S. 2477 as a law that is outdated and past its time. It is much easier to convince members of the general public that grading little-used backcountry roads is an "attack" on wilderness that cannot be tolerated if we are to "save what is left." It is much more difficult for rural residents to persuade the public that they need the roads for their livelihood and have a legal right to them. The battle for Utah wilderness is national in scope, and SUWA and other groups have a distinct advantage in garnering support among urban and suburban dwellers who do not relate to the rural lifestyle. The legal showdown over what constituted R.S. 2477 roads began in late September and early October of 1996, when counties began grading on six roads in San Juan County, five roads in Kane County, and four roads in Garfield county. The routes were located in Hart's point, east of Canyonlands National Park, in the Moquith Mountain 37 |