| HOME | Growing Opposition: Problems Remain With the Ironwood Designation |
BACK |
| By Robert Robb The Arizona Republic June 11, 2000
Despite the approval, some problems remain with the Ironwood designation, and growing opposition to the use of the Antiquities Act for general preservation purposes such as this. More than a third of the total acreage within the Ironwood boundaries belongs to the state, not the federal government. In fact, about 53,000 acres of state trust land is used to consolidate about 130,000 acres of fairly fragmented federal holdings in the area. Without the state land bridging frequent and, in some cases, large gaps between federal parcels, it would be difficult to make a monument work. The state trust has an obligation to seek a return on the land, and Babbitt has no agreement with the state for its land to be used in this manner. In fact, the Ironwood declaration has complicated discussions over his Lake Pleasant land exchange proposal, since it has added to the already sizable claims by the state for federal lands still owed as part of the Enabling Act or as compensation for previous federal decisions adversely affecting the value of state lands. The Ironwood boundaries also entrap the operating Silver Bell mine between the monument and the Tohono O'odham Indian Reservation. The mine reportedly had been looking at expansion on adjacent federal land, which the monument declaration would preclude. State Land Commissioner Mike Anable, who refreshingly takes the trust's fiduciary obligations seriously, has floated the idea of trading some of the state land needed for consolidation for federal land, which could accommodate a mine expansion. That might solve the state lands problem. But Tucson-area preservation advocates and environmentalists probably wouldn't be happy about it. Babbitt, for his part, is no fan of mining and, with respect to state lands, has heretofore seemed to take the attitude that there's no reason to buy what you can steal. He may seek to de facto use state lands to fill in the gaps of his national monument by rendering them useless for any other purpose. The Antiquities Act, under which national monuments are declared, was passed in 1906, primarily to protect archaeological finds. It gives the president discretion to grant monument status to "historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures and other objects of historic or scientific interest." But it also requires that such a designation "be confined to the smallest area compatible with the proper care and management of the objects protected." The act was never intended to be used for general preservation purposes. But it has been used that way by presidents since Teddy Roosevelt, who in 1908 declared more than 800,000 acres of the Grand Canyon a national monument. (In 1919, Congress took action to make it a national park.) In modern times, the act has been used by presidents primarily to bypass Congress on general preservation designations. And compactness has become a very elastic concept. In 1978, Jimmy Carter declared 56 million acres of Alaska a national monument. The U.S. Supreme Court has recently shown a renewed commitment to striking down federal overreaching by both the executive and legislative branches. The Mountain States Legal Foundation is challenging the designation of 1.7 million acres in Utah as the Escalante monument, alleging that it is an abuse of the Antiquities Act. The House Appropriations Committee has attached a provision to the Interior Department's budget forbidding money to be used to implement monuments declared after 1999. And the full House has passed legislation requiring a participation process for local governments and the public before any additional national monuments are declared. Babbitt, a former Arizona governor, has made no secret of his intention to use his remaining months in office, in part, to create a land legacy in his native state. Earlier this year, President Clinton, upon Babbitt's recommendation, locked up more than a million acres of federal land in Arizona by designating the Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument. Land preservation is important. But so, too, are principles such as representative government and the separation of powers. Particularly when, as with the Ironwood Forest National Monument, the federal government is, in large measure, playing with someone else's land.
|