A recently released opinion from the Justice Department suggests that the Trump administration may seek to unilaterally eliminate national monument designations.
The administration has previously expressed interest in shrinking or removing protections on protected lands to clear the way for resource extraction or development, and the DOJ opinion would seem to mark an escalation of those priorities.
The stakes are particularly high here in Arizona, where we have the second-highest number of national monuments in the country.
Roger Naylor, author of "Arizona National Parks and Monuments: Scenic Wonders and Cultural Treasures of the Grand Canyon State," joined The Show to discuss the implications of this.
Full conversation
SAM DINGMAN: Roger, good morning.
ROGER NAYLOR: Good morning. Thank you for having me.
DINGMAN: Thank you for being here. So first, let's talk about exactly what this opinion says.
It says that in the opinion of this Justice Department, the president can revoke national monument designations created by previous presidents. That is a reversal of decades of precedent, right?
NAYLOR: Absolutely and obviously it will be challenged, but yeah, it's opening a door that's never been opened before. So it's very startling, and you're absolutely right that Arizona is especially vulnerable. We have 19 national monuments, so any of them could be at risk.
DINGMAN: Now, historically, if I'm not mistaken, Roger, national monuments are popular on both sides of the aisle. This isn't usually a partisan issue, right?
NAYLOR: Absolutely, it's one of the few things that we agree on. GQR, a polling company just back in January, released a poll that 88% of Arizona voters support the Antiquities Act, and that goes across the political spectrum.
82% of Republicans, 90% of independents and 91% of Democrats support this. I mean this is a big part of our identity, these wide open spaces, these protected places.
We are the Grand Canyon state, where the Sonoran Desert and the world's largest contiguous ponderosa pine forest, where the Superstition Mountains, the White Mountains, Rim Country, Monument Valley, Vermilion Cliffs, and the Sky Islands and just big wide open spaces.
That's our identity and a quality of life issue for us, as well as a big economic engine.
DINGMAN: So, not to be too on the nose here, but I referenced the title of your book earlier where you talked about National Parks and monuments as cultural treasures, and some folks listening to this may be more familiar with national parks than monuments.
Could you give us an example of a monument in the state that feels like a particularly significant treasure to you?
NAYLOR: Well, Canyon de Chelly on the Navajo Nation sort of embodies both of the the twin themes of the book with the scenic wonders because it is absolutely spectacular and the cultural treasures, because it protects hundreds and hundreds of the remains of ancient dwellings dating back centuries that were built by the ancestors of the Hopi, as well as the petroglyph sites and so forth.
So, Canyon de Chelly is a national monument, Wupatki, Sunset Crater Volcano, Walnut Canyon, Montezuma Castle, all these are national monuments. Vermilion Cliffs, which includes the Wave, that a lot of people are very familiar with, and the world's largest, and deepest slot canyon, Buckskin Gulch, Paria Canyon, all that's in Vermilion Cliffs National Monument.
So these are essential places to us, not only for our recreation, not only for tourism, but just protecting wildlife corridors and very often protecting watersheds, keeping our water supply safe as well.
So, the idea that any of these could be in jeopardy is quite frightening.
DINGMAN: Well, let's suppose that the administration does take action here to remove federal protection of some of these lands. Would the state have any recourse in a situation like that?
NAYLOR: Well, I don't think so. I mean, that goes beyond my pay grade, but I don't know because it's not about defunding and stepping up. Most of the work done on these monuments already are done by outside sources. Most of them have friends groups that do volunteer work and raise funds to improve, even at the Grand Canyon, that's the case.
If they're stripping them of protections, I'm not sure, I guess the state could maybe step in and try designating them as state parks, but I don't know what restrictions they would apply either.
This seems to be a step towards development of some kind or other, but there's a lot of things that are still allowed in the national monuments already, and most of them, I mean, this brings together such a wide spectrum of people.
Hikers and hunters, mountain bikers and off-roaders, birders and backpackers, boaters and RVers. We all come from all these different walks of life to experience these places. We're there for the beauty, we're there for the history, we're there for the relaxation and the quiet, and the idea that we're going to give away to sell off our public lands in some way to mining companies or timber companies or whatever.
This is not the early 19th century when we were desperate for resources in a growing nation. Right now, our most valuable resource, water, is the thing we need most, so having the parks protect a lot of that is, I think, a good thing.
