Arizona lawmakers have filed a suit against President Joe Biden over his designation of a national monument near the Grand Canyon, calling it a “land grab” that prevents further use and development.
Arizona Senate President Warren Petersen (R), Arizona House Speaker Ben Toma (R-27), Mohave County and the cities of Colorado City and Fredonia said Biden did not have the power to create the Baaj Nwaavjo I’tah Kukveni–Ancestral Footprints of the Grand Canyon National Monument under the Antiquities Act as it does not meet the definition under the law.
“Congress passed the Antiquities Act to protect just that: antiquities,’’ the lawsuit states.
The suit contends that any proclamation under the Antiquities Act must focus solely on historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historical or scientific significance. Furthermore, it emphasizes that such designations should be restricted to the “smallest area compatible” with the preservation and management of the designated items.
The lawsuit contends that Baaj Nwaavjo I’tah Kukveni does not meet either requirement.
Biden issued a proclamation on Aug. 8, 2023, setting aside 917,618 acres in three areas surrounding the Grand Canyon to protect “the rich cultural, ecological, scientific, historic, and scenic value of the greater Grand Canyon landscape.” The proclamation states it sets aside the sacred places for cultural and spiritual uses by Tribes in the Southwest while protecting livestock grazing and access for hunting and fishing.
The suit contends that mining was allowed in the Kaibab National Forest contingent upon meeting claim and patent prerequisites and other conditions outlined by federal statutes and regulations until the Obama administration issued a moratorium in 2009.
The suit also cites the Arizona Wilderness Act of 1984, passed by Congress to designate specific national forest lands in Arizona as wilderness while exempting certain areas from federal requirements for wilderness study area management. The act’s compromise, particularly concerning the “Arizona Strip” region north of the Grand Canyon, aimed to find a balanced solution acceptable to all stakeholders, including addressing mining-related concerns.
For approximately two decades following the Arizona Wilderness Act of 1984, the compromises within it were generally accepted by the involved interest groups. However, with the increasing value of uranium, there was a surge in interest in mining activities, particularly in northern Arizona, which holds significant uranium reserves.
Despite the potential for domestic production, restrictions such as those prohibiting mining in Grand Canyon National Park and adjacent wilderness areas have limited access to these resources, the lawsuit claimed, leading to a reliance on imports from foreign countries. Additionally, the secretary of the Interior in 2012 withdrew over a million acres from location and entry under the General Mining Law for 20 years, the suit continued.
The suit contends the proclamation permanently prohibits new mining activities within its boundaries and that mining operations generate significant fees and tax revenue for both the state and Mohave County. Any reduction in tax contributions from mining could shift the tax burden to other parties or necessitate cuts to essential government services. Additionally, uranium mining has been shown to have significant economic benefits for local communities, with a projected $29 billion boost to economies in northern Arizona and southern Utah over a 42-year period, according to a 2009 study.
The suit also states that the new monument harms state trust land as the monument surrounds portions of it, and the prohibition of construction and development would severely limit the state’s ability to maintain the trust lands.
The plaintiffs state that Biden’s designation violates legal authority and does not give him the authority to define what constitutes a historical landmark or object of historical or scientific interest. They also claim the designation violates the Arizona-New Mexico Enabling Act by prohibiting development on state trust lands. In addition, the plaintiffs allege that it violates the Arizona Wilderness Act of 1984 as the government lacks the power to change the designated land use under the act.
The plaintiffs are asking the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona to declare the creation of the monument unlawful and to set aside its designation as a monument. — Charles Wallace, WLJ contributing editor
