Utah and the Feds to Work out a deal on Roads?

Samuraiman

Sand Pile
Location
St George Utah
http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=11804049&hl=0

Feds, Utah vow to settle fight over dirt roads
July 31st, 2010 @ 2:55pm
By Paul Foy, AP Writer
SALT LAKE CITY (AP) -- For decades, state and federal officials across the West have locked horns over who rightfully controls countless dirt roads that cross federal lands.

Now, the federal Bureau of Land Management is inviting Utah officials to sit down and negotiate the dispute.

On Friday, BLM director Bob Abbey laid out a roadmap for talks, suggesting officials start first in Iron County and take the easiest roads to resolve in open, transparent negotiations.

Abbey said he was acting at the direction of Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and taking up a challenge originally proposed by the Utah Association of Counties.

"We're optimistic -- optimistic enough to devote some energy to this. We think it can lead to an outcome where special areas can be protected and counties can be secure in getting legitimate transportation routes recognized." -Heidi McIntosh"Do we have a deal yet?" said the association's No. 2 official, Mark Ward. "No, but the groundwork is laid."

The association's executive director, Brent Gardner, said, "We're happy and certainly want to work with them."

No timetable for talks has been set.

The dispute is over historic passageways across lands owned by BLM, the U.S. Forest Service and the National Park Service.

Utah officials say a one-sentence 1866 law assured open passage across the federal lands. The law -- repealed in 1976 with protection for existing roads -- set off protracted fights about which routes crisscrossing the West qualify for local control.

Many of the roads are faint tracks and barely passable even by four-wheel-drive vehicles. Others are maintained roads open for travel.

Utah wants to control or take title to all of these roads, or at least settle the debate about who controls which roads, Ward said.

That seems unlikely as environmental groups push to keep roads across wilderness-worthy lands closed to vehicles.

Three groups -- The Wilderness Society, National Parks Conservation Association and the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance -- said they will take part in negotiations.

"We're optimistic -- optimistic enough to devote some energy to this," said Heidi McIntosh, associate director of the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance. "We think it can lead to an outcome where special areas can be protected and counties can be secure in getting legitimate transportation routes recognized."

Over the years, the federal government closed some of roads, provoking lawsuits that Utah counties have largely lost.

Nearly a decade ago, then-Utah Gov. Mike Leavitt signed another framework of negotiation with federal officials that "went nowhere," both Ward and McIntosh said.

McIntosh said her group reached out to successive Utah governors Olene Walker, Jon Huntsman and now Gary Herbert but couldn't move the ball forward.

"We needed a dance partner -- it takes two people to tango. We were unable to find a partner until recently," McIntosh said. "We give a lot of credit to Mark Ward."

Ward said the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance may have been long on negotiation but was short on compromise. Wilderness groups balked under the Republican administration of President George Bush, and it took the administration of Barack Obama, a Democrat, to get environmental groups to bargain in earnest, he said.

Anne Merwin, a policy adviser for The Wilderness Society, applauded Salazar's effort to resolve the long-standing dispute.

Utah officials have asserted many of their claims over roads in Zion National Park, Dinosaur National Monument and Cedar Breaks National Monument, said Kristen Brengel, legislative director for the National Parks Conservation Association.

"We welcome an opportunity to work with federal, state and local officials to bring some closure to this issue," Brengel said.

(Copyright 2010 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)
 
M

muddyjeep

Guest
You know I am so fed up with all this BS! Why can't they just leave sh!t the F alone!!!!!
Just a bunch of Aholes in suits!
 
...to resolve in open, transparent negotiations.

This will be interesting.

Who will represent the off road community.

This is THE question, and I fear the answer isn't good.

You know I am so fed up with all this BS! Why can't they just leave sh!t the F alone!!!!!
Just a bunch of Aholes in suits!

Leaving "sh1t" alone for this long has been the problem. These claims should've been made and validated in 1977 instead of jacking around for 30+ years with the "we'll get around to it eventually" attitude. We've lost a ton of miles since then.
 
M

muddyjeep

Guest
Just fed up with all the land use issues! It seems like all they can think about is close this close that! I hope this ends up working out in our favor!
 

ricsrx

Well-Known Member
Who is ''The association'' and who's interest do they represent, apparently they have clout to get to any kind of a negotiation table.

Do we abandon all other organizations IE. usaall and the rest and put our money behind ''The association".

I see this as the biggest problem with keeping land open, we have to many irons in the fire.

I give money to every one, who is doing the job or do we all look like a bunch of small time whiners?????????????????????????

I have said it before, this is a dying sport, we should just give our money to private land ownders or Larry miller to pour concreat..
 
Who is ''The association'' and who's interest do they represent

http://www.uacnet.org/

http://www.uacnet.org/about/

RS2477 rights can only be granted to a state or county government. UAC has been working on this for a while, note the article mentions this is in response to a proposal by UAC. That's how they get their seat at the table.

I give money to every one, who is doing the job or do we all look like a bunch of small time whiners?????????????????????????

Nobody's doing the job. Keep your money.
 

jackjoh

Jack - KC6NAR
Supporting Member
Location
Riverton, UT
Leaving "sh1t" alone for this long has been the problem. These claims should've been made and validated in 1977 instead of jacking around for 30+ years with the "we'll get around to it eventually" attitude. We've lost a ton of miles since then.

Back in 1976 Cal4 started identifying roads and trails and things were fine until Boxer and Fienstein got elected in 1982. With two liberal democratic senators they were able to disregard all that had been done. Thats one reason I moved to Utah. I figured there was a chance to keep four wheeling with two republican senators but now I am beginning to wonder. I will not stop trying and will do my best but we sure need help.
 

Don B

formerly rebarguy
Location
Southern Utah
The word I get back I back on this is that it is all BS
The Fed's are only going to look at B roads and they are not considering Recordable Disclaimers of Interest, which is basically a quit claim deed. The whole process is mostly a smoke screen to try and hold off litigation by the counties in order to gain title to their roads.

Kane County has 168 roads that have been impacted by federal decisions and not one of them would be looked at under this proposal. Kane County is continuing forward with Quiet Title actions in federal court.

This will not do anything to resolve the RS2477 situation. It will basically be that the Fed's give permission to the counties to maintain roads that they have no control over.

This is between the government agencies, counties, state and federal and not really something that is open to individuals (don't ask why then are SUWA and the Wilderness Society involved, that's another rant). I recommend that people encourage the counties to continue court action rather than be involved in this mess.
 

Don B

formerly rebarguy
Location
Southern Utah
Letter from Mark Habbeshaw;


You may have read the recent news articles reporting a pilot program to resolve the controversy over R.S. 2477 rights-of-way in Utah.
The project was initially conceived to resolve highway rights through a process in which the Department of the Interior (DOI) would issue Recordable Disclaimers of Interest (title) for county highways that appeared on USGS maps created from information predating 1976.
The attached letter indicates how far the "pilot project" has drifted from the original concept, even before the first meeting.
The list of organizations listed as "stakeholders" at the end of the letter and their importance to the process should raise concerns with all other interests and organizations.
Already, RDIs are off the table. No titles will be forthcoming, and without title, certainty will not be achieved. The DOI and the BLM have already denied previous "administrative" acknowledgements of R.S. 2477 rights and claim that counties must adjudicate (Quiet Title) before the agencies will recognize R.S. 2477 "claims." The current federal policy denies all R.S. 2477 claims and encourages counties to apply for FLPMA Title V permits to operate their historic highways.
The process is limited to only non-controversial, Class B (maintained) highways. The process will do nothing to resolve controversial roads or to open roads the federal agencies have purported to close or restrict. Those roads will still have to be litigated. The process will not include Class D roads, which are the unmaintained, two-track roads accessing the truly remote areas of our counties. The process, therefore, will not benefit the OHV community, hunters, fisherman, ranchers, and other access oriented interests.
Most likely, the federal government will try to establish administrative control beyond the federal authority limited under R.S. 2477. The scope of rights-of-way will most likely be significantly restricted from that provided under R.S. 2477. Before negotiations progress very far, FLPMA Title Vs will likely be proposed as the "universal solution" to the controversy, thus establishing the highways under federal control with the counties authority reduced to little more than a maintenance function. The new federal paradigm would create federal administrative control over the highways while creating a mechanism for county maintenance , thus saving the federal government the cost and responsibility for maintenance, repair and construction of roads under its newly-created administrative control.
Past attempts to settle R.S. 2477 issues have only moved forward if the terms and conditions favored the federal government, at the expense of State and local government and the people of Utah. Fortunately, those previous efforts favoring the federal government were not implemented for various reasons.
The attached letter is being forwarded to broader interests because of the obvious bias in favor of environmental groups, evidenced by the letter's distribution list.
People interested in the issue should judge the process by appropriate federal actions rather than by unsubstantiated federal promises.
If the DOI and the BLM wanted to resolve the R.S. 2477 controversy they could submit roads like Skutumpah, Hancock and the Sand Dunes roads to the court in Kane County's Quiet Title law suit, as proposed by the U.S. District Court Judge. Instead, federal attorneys have fought the County at every turn, including a recent Motion for Summary Judgment, which would allow the County to maintain the roads which have deteriorated to hazardous conditions because of the federal refusal to maintain roads it now claims to own.
Public highways are the biggest threat to ever-expanding visions of wilderness. Wilderness that is strongly supported by federal land management agencies and environmental groups.
I hope I am proven wrong but history supports the validity of these concerns.
Sincerely,
Mark Habbeshaw
Commissioner, Kane County
 
Top