MAGA fails to derail GESNM plan; Trump looks to tweak WSA management, climbing rules
Plus: A guest commentary on Colorado River allocation
🌞 Good News! 😎
THE NEWS: Sen. Mike Lee, the ultra-MAGA Utah Republican, failed once again to diminish public lands protections when his bid to use the Congressional Review Act to revoke Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument’s management plan expired before getting a vote.
THE CONTEXT: This spring, Lee and Rep. Celeste Maloy, also a Utah Republican, introduced a joint resolution of disapproval in both houses of Congress aimed at repealing the 2024 management plan. That started the clock ticking on a 60-day time-limit for a simple majority vote to overturn the plan. The deadline passed on June 11 without any action, meaning that any effort to toss the plan now would be subject to the Senate filibuster, so would need 60 votes to pass — a highly unlikely prospect.
Had the resolution passed, the national monument’s management would have reverted back to the weak and inadequate 2020 Trump I-era plan, which allowed more grazing, more damaging “vegetation management,” and more off-road vehicle use. Plus the 2020 plan only covered the 1 million acres left in the national monument after Trump removed about 900,000 acres from its boundaries, meaning almost half of the national monument would in a sort of management limbo.
This would have sown chaos and confusion, yet it wouldn’t have diminished the national monument or the protections that were baked into the establishing proclamation. The monument boundaries would have remained intact, along with the prohibition on new oil and gas drilling, mining claims, and other energy development.
Nevertheless, it clearly was intended as an attack on the national monument and the attendant protections, which have been a sore spot for Utah sagebrush rebel-leaning politicians since Bill Clinton established it under the Antiquities Act 30 years ago this September. What Maloy or Lee hoped to actually achieve with the attack is a little less clear, even if it had hit its target.
Maloy likely was trying to brush up on her anti-federal-land-management credentials before what could be a bruising primary. Her challenger is notorious sagebrush rebel Phil Lyman, who led an illegal OHV-ride down the archaeologically rich Recapture Canyon in 2014 to protest what he called “federal overreach.”
So far, Maloy is winning the fundraising race by a healthy margin. Utah Political Watch reports that the Defend our Values Super PAC run by former Rep. Chris Stewart, R-Utah, just donated $900,000 to Maloy’s campaign. The American Conservation Coalition PAC, which says it “helps elect leaders who champion American energy dominance, environmental conservation, and cutting-edge innovation,” has spent over $150,000 in support of Maloy, as well. Maloy isn’t exactly living up to the conservation part of that, but I’m not sure the PAC folks care too much about it, either.
And then there’s Lee. Sometimes it feels as if he’s taking up the tasks Project 2025 guided the Trump administration to execute, but that the administration has backed off from because of how deeply unpopular they have turned out to be. It’s almost as if the administration is tasking Lee with feeding some red meat to the MAGA base, but also is setting him up to fail.
🌵 Public Lands 🌲
THE NEWS: The U.S. Interior Department is launching a “review” of rock climbing management and wilderness study area policies. On June 15 it opened the 60-day public comment period on its proposals to establish “a consistent approach to recreational rock climbing management across designated wilderness areas,” and to evaluate whether “existing wilderness study areas and lands with wilderness characteristic policies should be updated, clarified, or revised.”
THE CONTEXT: Any time the Trump administration decides to “review” something, it pays to be wary, since more often than not the review leads to the evisceration of some sort of environmental protection. They tend to couch it in euphemisms, however, such as this bit from an Interior press release: “… Interior is focused on expanding outdoor recreation opportunities, removing unnecessary barriers to access, and use, and managing public lands in a way that benefits the American people.”
Wilderness areas are designated by Congress and are governed by a set of specific rules that can’t be altered by the administration. However, the question of whether installing fixed climbing bolts and anchors is permitted or not is vague and has shifted over the years (what is clear is that power drills cannot be used to install them). The administration is looking to clear this up, and to allow fixed anchors in wilderness areas as long as they follow certain guidelines.
Wilderness study areas share many of the same qualities and protections as wilderness areas, but have not been designated as such by Congress. In 1976, Congress tasked the BLM with identifying potential wilderness areas within its domain and make recommendations regarding them. Those that were identified and fit certain criteria but not designated became wilderness study areas, or WSAs. There are currently 491 wilderness study areas covering over 11 million acres. Look at a map of areas that have large swaths of BLM land — particularly in Utah — and you’ll almost certainly find a few.
The Federal Land Policy Management Act directed the BLM to manage the WSAs "in a manner so as not to impair the suitability of such areas for preservation as wilderness" and prevent "unnecessary or undue degradation." In other words, you couldn’t build a permanent road through a WSA because that would preclude it from being designated as a wilderness area later.
This leaves room for agency interpretation. The current BLM policy, carried out in accordance with a 2012 manual, is to “continue resource uses on land designated as WSAs in a manner that maintains the area’s suitability for preservation as wilderness.” Under that policy, the agency almost certainly would not permit a road through a WSA, because that would preclude it from being designated as a wilderness area later. And, according to the memo, it most likely would not allow motorized or mountain bike use in a WSA.
The current administration is unlikely to get away with allowing permanent roads in WSAs. However, given its language about removing barriers to access, one can expect it to apply a broader and more permissive interpretation of the non-impairment standard to its policies. This might mean allowing motorized vehicle or mountain bike use within WSAs on existing trails, for example, or even some logging or small-scale mining, so long as the agency officials could convince themselves that it would be cleaned up later.
Finally, the BLM also has a policy for managing lands with wilderness characteristics that are not WSAs or designated wilderness areas. The administration is reviewing this policy, as well.
Interior announced all of these policies in one press release, but you need to comment on them individually. Here’s how:
For the fixed anchors and other climbing management changes in wilderness areas, go to the Federal Register page and follow the instructions, or go directly to the regulations.gov page and click on “Comment.”
For changes to wilderness study area management, go to the Federal Register page, and read the instructions, or go directly to the regulations.gov page and click on “Comment.”
For changes to lands with wilderness characteristics management, go to the Federal Register page, and follow the instructions, or go directly to the regulations.gov page and click on “Comment.”
🐟 Colorado River Chronicles 💧
Guest Commentary: A Fair Allocation for the Colorado River
by Levi Tenen
This summer is the last chance for seven Western states to allocate the Colorado River voluntarily before the federal government steps in1. Gridlock persists: Lower Basin states (California, Arizona, and Nevada) have offered to reduce their water usage the most, but they believe that Upper Basin States (Colorado, New Mexico, Wyoming, and Utah) ought to reduce their usage as well if the region dries up too much.2 The Upper Basin states reject this proposal, refusing to reduce the amount of water that was allotted to them under previous agreements.3 The federal government has proposed solutions of its own, all of which seem to favor the Upper Basin states.4
The debate raises fundamental questions: how should resources be allocated in times of scarcity, and do past agreements matter today? From my research in ethics, I think there is an answer, and one that has not been noticed by others. Justice demands that Upper Basin states give up some of their allotted, promised water, but Lower Basin states must greatly limit their water usage and—the new idea—Lower Basin states ought to pay for the extra water they receive.5
To see why, consider a thought experiment from philosopher Jeremy Waldron6: Imagine you and I own ranches in an arid region. We drill wells on our respective properties and enjoy plentiful water. Good times come to an end, however, when a drought sets in and my well runs dry. Unable to relocate, I am stuck in a dire circumstance. Due to the geography of the area, however, you continue to have a surplus of water. What, if anything, do you owe me? Without anyone else around to help me, are you obligated to share your water? The answer is yes, to an extent. It would be wrong, for instance, if you prevented me access to your well just to let the water go unused, leaving me to die. It would also be wrong if you kept me from your well so that you could build a nice new pool, or even so that you could increase your wealth by adding many more head of cattle, all while I perish nearby. Put simply, in times of scarcity and desperation, justice limits a person’s property rights. Justice will never require you to endanger yourself, but more modest sacrifices can become obligatory.
What most people miss, however, is that obligations often fall onto the recipients of aid. Return to the above case. First, even though water is scarce, other resources may not be. So, while you are obliged to give me water, if I have money, labor, or something else to give in return, I ought to do so. It would be unfair, after all, for me to hold onto large amounts of disposable wealth and take your water, leaving you altogether worse off and me only better off.
Secondly, even though I receive water from you, I cannot use it however I want. For, I do not have the right to an endless amount of your water. The water you owe me is only for the basic conditions of life, not for wasting away or for self-serving, economic growth. So, I mustn’t add more cattle to my ranch or build a pretty fountain in my courtyard. Indeed, if scarcity persists, I need to reduce my water consumption greatly, scaling back my ranch operations. To do otherwise would be to limit your future opportunity unjustly.
Carried over to the Colorado River, this much then seems clear: Upper Basin states ought to give some of their unused water to Lower Basin states, even though they all previously agreed to allocate that water to the Upper Basin. The scarce and desperate times limit the past agreements, particularly because the scarcity was unforeseen. And make no mistake: the Lower Basin states are facing dire times. Tens of millions of people in those states depend on the river for drinking water.7 Moreover, 70% of the water goes to food production, with the majority going towards crops in Lower Basin states.8 Running out of water is an existential threat to the cities and peoples in the Lower Basin, and it is a threat to food security the nation over.9
However, the Lower Basin states ought to purchase the water from Upper Basin states and they need to minimize their burden on those states, even if that means ceasing new housing developments and industrial projects. Perhaps if the Lower Basin states add these conditions to their offer, negotiations will move forward and the Upper Basin will accept their share of the burden: sending some of their allotted water downstream.
Levi Tenen is an Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Virginia Wesleyan University. He grew up in Arizona and conducts research at the intersection of Ethics, Political Philosophy, and Environmental Law.
https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R45546 (if printed as Pdf-- p. 34-35)
https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R45546 PDF p. 35-36
https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R45546 PDF p. 40 and 43.
Nowhere in this doc (https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R45546) does it mention compensation from lower basin states. The only exception I can find is: https://cwseducation.ucdavis.edu/class/116/inefficient-over-appropriated-and-non-inclusive-can-water-trading-resolve-pitfalls
Waldron, Jeremy (1992) “Superseding Historic Injustice,” Ethics 103:1, pp. 4-28.
https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R45546 PDF p.5
https://mcmsc.asu.edu/sites/g/files/litvpz576/files/2024-08/Water%20Project%20compressed_1.pdf
https://mcmsc.asu.edu/sites/g/files/litvpz576/files/2024-08/Water%20Project%20compressed_1.pdf