First draft of a bill in the House, called the ‘‘Ending Presidential 5 Overreach on Public Lands Act’’. The only provision:
‘‘The establishment or extension of a national monument may be undertaken only by express authorization of
Congress.’’
Note that it does not mention reducing the size of monuments.
I’m disgusted with the current Congress, but I think this bill is worth considering. The act has been in the news recently in Oregon. The Oregonian reported in December:
Gov. Tina Kotek just made one last plea to President Joe Biden to protect a stunning stretch of the state known as “Oregon’s Grand Canyon” before he leaves office.
Kotek wrote to Biden on Nov. 22, asking that he invoke the Antiquities Act of 1906 and designate more than 1 million acres of the 2.5 million acre area in southeast Oregon, including 15 miles of the Owyhee River, a national monument, a move that would limit ranching use and development. The letter is a follow-up to a similar request in August to protect the area if Congress failed to act.
This land deserves consideration as a monument, but such a designation is more properly one Congress ought to make. The Antiquities Act was never intended to be used in such a way.
I guess what annoys me most about Monuments is that they require the poor federal agencies to write another plan, with NEPA and public involvement after the decision is already made. It seems a) wasteful and b) annoying to be “consulted” about the unimportant things after the previous decisions have been made.
Also it seems a bit hypocritical to argue for them on the basis of economic (tourism) development and yet ignore the negative environmental and social impacts of increased visitation. But hey… no EIS needed.. leave that to the federal clean-up crew.
.
Nation to nation talks are coalescing around the He Sapa Restoration Act that would remand some public lands to the Oceti Sakowin Oyate with hopes of introducing it in the US Congress in 2025 but some elders believe it doesn’t go far enough.
Theodore Roosevelt was hardly an altruistic humanitarian but that a sitting Republican US Representative believes legislation like this would survive a veto by a chief executive who is actively engaged in dismantling protections for lands seized from Indigenous people probably needs to seek psychiatric advice.
I agree that it would be appropriate for Congress to act if it wants to, but I don’t see what’s wrong with the existing structure. The Antiquities Act provides a president with a quicker option when protection of resources is needed. Congress can then step in and reduce or eliminate the protection (which it has done) or designate a national park (which it has done). This errs on the side of maintaining the status quo and avoiding irreversible consequences.
I agree that it might be “annoying” to be asked to fine tune a decision you didn’t agree with. I don’t know about “wasteful,” though. Starting from scratch on designating a national monument would be a much bigger job; the Antiquities Act saves unnecessary work if the administration is predisposed to a particular alternative.