OPINION — This letter is in response to a St. George News article entitled “Washington County attorney says county was excluded from Northern Corridor lawsuit settlement discussions” previously published Sept. 30 by St. George News.
The article reiterates Washington County’s long-held position that Congress somehow promised or approved the Northern Corridor Highway that former Interior Secretary Bernhardt authorized in the last days of the Trump administration. As proof, the article includes an inset from the county attorney’s office with text from the “Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009” (OPLMA). A plain reading of this text shows that the county’s position is ridiculous.
Under this federal statute, in a section titled “Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management Plan,” it says that “not later than 3 years after the date of enactment,” the Interior Secretary “shall develop” a comprehensive travel management plan for Washington County. In developing this transportation plan, the Interior Secretary shall “identify 1 or more alternatives for a northern transportation route in the county.”
The keywords here are “identify” and “alternatives.” This text clearly does not require the Secretary to approve any specific northern transportation route, only to “identify 1 or more alternatives” for such a route.
In addition, this identification of alternatives was to occur during the Bureau of Land Management’s development of the Transportation Management Plan for Washington County. By law, this was supposed to happen no later than 2012. It is now a decade after this deadline and BLM has appallingly not yet developed this required plan. Since this identification of alternatives was to be part of the plan, it is arguably still pending.
However, in the interim, BLM prepared draft and final environmental impact statements under the National Environmental Policy Act to analyze the county and Utah Department of Transportation’s proposed Northern Corridor Highway.
This four-lane highway would go through two areas specifically designated to protect threatened Mojave desert tortoises and their critical habitats: BLM’s Red Cliffs National Conservation Area and the Red Cliffs Desert Reserve. In this NEPA analysis, BLM identified five alternative northern transportation routes; three through the protected areas and two outside them. It can therefore be plausibly argued that this NEPA analysis fulfilled the intent if not the letter of the OPLMA text.
While the two northern transportation routes outside of the protected areas were found to be feasible and of comparable public benefit, President Donald Trump’s Interior Secretary chose to approve the much more environmentally and tortoise-harmful specific Northern Corridor Highway route requested by the county and UDOT.
This approval likely violated at least five federal laws and is now being challenged under pending federal litigation. This approval was also likely the result of significant Trump administration political pressure placed on career federal officials.
The reported settlement by plaintiffs in the litigation was a constructive attempt to rescind the Northern Corridor Highway approval without causing undue disruption of other ongoing activities. It is ironic that the county attorney now complains about being left out of the initial settlement discussions when the county has been largely secretive over many years in its ongoing behind-the-scenes lobbying for the Northern Corridor Highway.
All citizens should be concerned when important government decisions are made under political duress instead of in conformance with the relevant laws, objective facts and public interest.
Submitted by RICHARD SPOTTS, St. George.
Letters to the Editor are not the product of St. George News, its editors, staff or news contributors. The matters stated and opinions given are the responsibility of the person submitting them. They do not reflect the product or opinion of St. George News and are given only light edit for technical style and formatting.
Letters to the Editor are not the product of St. George News, its editors, staff or news contributors. The matters stated and opinions given are the responsibility of the person submitting them. They do not reflect the product or opinion of St. George News and are given only light edit for technical style and formatting.