But when I read Bureau of Land Management's Don Banks characterize Kane County as acting as if the BLM should have no say in how lands are managed, I had to laugh.
On one hand, when BLM amends its plans, it insists that the issue of who owns road rights of ways will not be addressed in the planning process. On the other hand, BLM's new plans close roads that have been asserted to be valid rights of way. The BLM is having its cake and eating it too.
The BLM is assuming it has the authority to close or to assume jurisdiction over public roads, which until the early 1990s were acknowledged by the courts to be controlled by state and local government. Today, state and local jurisdiction over roads is being challenged by BLM and environmental groups. This is an epic battle that will likely end up in the Supreme Court.
Land management plans are a casualty in this fight. Because ownership of these roads is being contested, it will be difficult if not impossible to implement the new plans.
Until the ownership issue is settled by the courts, the BLM must find a way to amend its plans and deal with the road issue that is consistent, or at least not inconsistent, with applicable law and which does not force the counties or other public land users into adversarial positions such as is occurring in Kane County.
---
Brian Hawthorne is public lands director for The BlueRibbon Coalition, a national recreation group that champions responsible use of public and private lands based in Pocatello, Idaho.
