Source of this article - Los Angeles Times, October 4, 2006
A House measure would allow a right of way to be claimed on any mapped route in parks or other national areas. Critics fear a motorized influx.By Julie Cart, Times Staff Writer
A bill introduced by Rep. Steve Pearce, a New Mexico Republican, would give
Western states and counties broad authority over rights of way across federal
land, allowing them to convert footpaths, wagon tracks and cattle trails into
roads.
Echoing a long-repealed 19th century statute, Pearce's bill would
permit local governments to claim rights of way through national parks, national
forests, wilderness areas, wildlife refuges and military bases, provided the
routes appear on any official map or survey made before 1976. According to his
bill, such documents can include land office plats and "tourist maps."
Critics say the bill, which was introduced Friday, is a giveaway of
public land that would open up more of the nation's parks and wilderness areas
to motorized travel.
Pearce's staff said Tuesday that the congressman
intends the bill to clarify for Western counties and states what constitutes a
valid right of way across federal land.
Rights-of-way conflicts have
been simmering for more than a decade in counties where the federal government
owns the bulk of the land.
In recent years, a handful of counties in
southern Utah have asserted claims to rights of way across Arches National Park,
Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument and Canyonlands National Park.
"The problem is that currently it's a patchwork, case-by-case legal
review," said David Host, Pearce's communications director. "In his view you had
an untenable situation. This will establish rights and increase
predictability."
But critics say the broad language of the bill, which
allows rights of way on "any public lands ever owned by the United States,"
could open land Congress has already protected from roads and other
intrusions.
"It's so sweeping that it's almost impossible to believe,"
said Kristen Brengel of the Wilderness Society.
In recent years, counties
have made rights-of-way claims under an 1866 law, RS 2477, which was designed to
encourage the development of the West. The law was repealed in 1976, but
grandfathered in previously granted rights of way. But controversy lingered over
what constituted a legal right of way.
In California, San Bernardino
County claimed authority over nearly 5,000 miles of rights of way — more than
twice the total mileage of maintained roads in the county. The claims included
2,567 miles within the Mojave National Preserve.
Former Interior
Secretary Gale Norton sought to resolve the matter in 2003 in an agreement with
Mike Leavitt, then the governor of Utah.
The agreement would have opened
millions of acres in national parks and wilderness areas to motorized
transportation. Shortly after the deal was reached, southern Utah counties began
upgrading primitive roads, and some officials tore down federal signs forbidding
recreational vehicles.
Environmental groups challenged the agreement,
and a federal appeals court ruled last year that the burden of proof was on
counties to prove their case, in part, by showing 10 years of continual use of
the rights of ways.
Pearce's proposal expands on the court's ruling,
Brengel said. "It goes further than the court or Norton. It says that just a
line on a map is good enough to establish a claim," she said.
But Kane
County Commissioner Mark Habbeshaw, who has sued to control roads on federal
land in southern Utah, said, "There's no intention to make claims on trails or
roads in obscure areas."
Under Pearce's bill, Kane County could claim a
right to every hiking trail in Bryce Canyon and Zion national parks, Habbeshaw
said, but the county has no intention of doing so.
"We could argue that
our rights of way across the national parks are valid, and we want them opened
up as road today," he said. "We've made no effort and will not make an effort to
do so."
Habbeshaw said that the Utah-based Western Counties Alliance
wrote the bill and brought it to Pearce in an effort to broaden the issue beyond
Utah. Pearce agreed to sponsor it, he said, knowing that it would generate
opposition from environmental groups.
If nothing else, he said, the bill
will start a discussion.
"We have to sit down and deal with RS 2477 as
professional and practical people," Habbeshaw said.
"I'm not saying the
current language is a lock and that we are not open to changes."