By Aimee Tooker | Commentary, Rocky Mountain Voice
Community leaders and residents in Southwestern Colorado and New Mexico oppose proposed national monument designations that would affect hundreds of thousands of acres.
They oppose increased federal oversight and its limits on land use. Locals say that current land management practices have preserved nature and resources. They see no need for further federal intervention.
This is about more than limiting local land use. Opponents see a systemic problem with the monument designation process. Local frustration has grown. The federal-driven proposals may limit public input and ultimately property rights. They lack community collaboration.
In southwestern communities, management of federal lands is vital. It affects the well-being, health and culture of towns, counties and tax districts. Local residents want a stronger voice in managing these lands as they are the backbone of their communities.
Further, many private individuals hold possessory rights on federal lands, from water and grazing rights to mineral and recreational permits, and are adamant that these critical rights be respected during any land management shifts.
One significant worry stems from the burden that federal land designations can place on local governments.
Section 1701(a)(13) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) acknowledges that federal lands exempt from local and state taxes impose a heavy responsibility on state and local governments, tasked with maintaining infrastructure and providing essential services.
Sean Pond, a business owner and leader of the Halt the Dolores National Monument campaign, echoes this sentiment: “This land is not in danger, and proponents of the monument are spreading rhetoric and misinformation to push for wilderness-type qualifications. We must stand united against this land grab and tell this administration: no more monuments, no more designations, no more public land closures and no more restrictions on American freedoms.”
The 1906 Antiquities Act allows the President to create national monuments on federal lands. These must contain historic or scientific landmarks. The Act mandates designating only the “smallest area” needed to protect them.
Yet, a proposal for a 400,000-acre project in the Dolores River region of Colorado is on the table. The footprint of this national monument would encompass all 9 national monuments currently in Colorado. Many locals see this as an overreach.
Opposition groups, including business associations, government bodies and farming and ranching organizations across Mesa, Montrose, Dolores, Delta and Archuleta counties are voicing their resistance.
The municipalities of Nucla, Naturita, Norwood, Nucla-Naturita Fire Protection District and Gateway-Unaweep Fire Department have submitted opposition declarations.
In neighboring New Mexico, the proposed Mimbres Peaks National Monument faces similar resistance. This designation would encompass around 250,000 acres, including the Cookes, Good Sight, Florida and Tres Hermanas mountain ranges.
This list of opponents is long: Deming Soil and Water Conservation District, Luna County Farm and Livestock Bureau, San Juan County Farm and Livestock Bureau, Torrance County Farm and Livestock Bureau, Deming Gem and Mineral Society, Coalition of Arizona, New Mexico Counties for Stable Economic growth, City of Deming, Village of Columbus, Hidalgo, Chaves, Sierra, Lincoln, Lea, Otero, Union and Luna Counties have submitted opposition declarations.
Russell Johnson, a fourth-generation cattle rancher in Luna County, emphasized the community’s frustration: “The Mimbres Peaks National monument designation is not community-led, but rather an effort being forced upon Luna County by outside influences. Every municipality and governing body within Luna County has passed resolutions opposing this proposal and is supported by numerous other counties and organizations in its opposition.”
Both Colorado’s Halt the Dolores National Monument and New Mexico’s No Mimbres National Monument campaigns argue that these proposals are not only out of step with community interests but also lack essential federal funding for managing the anticipated influx of visitors.
It’s not just Colorado and New Mexico residents who are facing this type of government overreach. Residents in California are organizing in opposition to the Range of Light national monument proposal of 1.4 million acres in California.
Opponents claim that evidence against the monument proposals has been ignored, including geological and federal studies.
Locals feel sidelined. They see outside interests driving a process with little local input.
The coalitions wrote their proposals without the knowledge, collaboration or input from impacted counties and communities. They aim to get President Biden to sign their proposals before he leaves office in January.
Authorities haven’t allowed locals to submit any evidence, facts, and studies to contradict the proponent’s position. Not United States Geological Surveys, the protected lands database, or Federal NEPA and agency studies that have already been compiled in the areas.
Proponents seem to have swayed the U.S. senators, who have ignored this evidence.
The proponents have clung to their bias, while ignoring the economic and fiscal realities of communities and America.
With the swipe of a pen, Biden could make these changes. No federal funds would be set aside to manage these areas or the huge influx of visitors a monument designation would bring.
For generations, locals have worked alongside management agencies to ensure that our lands remain both productive and protected.
Locals believe that the push for monument status bypasses a tradition of cooperation. They want land management to reflect the needs of those who know the land best.
Editor’s note: Opinions expressed in commentary pieces are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the management of the Rocky Mountain Voice, but even so we support the constitutional right of the author to express those opinions.