The official designation of a huge swath of land in northern Arizona is prompting an angry debate between federal and state officials regarding the future use of that land.
Last month President Biden announced that nearly 1 million acres of public land surrounding the Grand Canyon National Park would be protected from development.
In establishing the Baaj Nwaavjo I’tah Kukveni Ancestral Footprints of the Grand Canyon National Monument, Biden noted that he was also protecting more than 3,000 sacred and cultural sites belonging to a number of Native American tribes.
“America’s natural wonders are our nation’s heart and soul,” Biden said in announcing the designation of the land as a new national monument.
Such wonders, continued the President, are a “birthright we pass down from generation to generation.”
The land in question is more specifically located to the south, northeast and northwest of the Grand Canyon National Park.
According to a White House statement, the area in question includes everything from “sweeping plateaus and deep canyons to meandering creeks and streams that ultimately flow into the mighty Colorado River, providing water to millions of people across the Southwest.”
But some Arizona officials have suggested that they may go to court to overturn the new land designation, arguing that its real purpose is to prevent mining in the area.
In a statement, Arizona State President Warren Petersen remarked: “Using the guise of creating a Grand Canyon national monument in a remote area that is not even connected to the Grand Canyon is completely disingenuous.”
Petersen added that the Biden designation is designed to “block responsible mining and agricultural production” in the area.
Arizona Majority Whip Sine Kerr, also in a statement, said the designation carries “drastic implications for the livelihoods of our cattle ranchers who have relied on this land for generations.”
The White House has said that existing mining claims will remain in place, with “two approved mining operations within the boundaries of the monument” being allowed to operate.
Despite that pledge, some Arizona lawmakers have said that the monument designation is an unconstitutional usurpation of public land that can only be resolved in court.
Petersen has disclosed that as part of a preliminary investigation, he has directed attorneys to identify individuals, businesses, and local governments that may be negatively impacted by the land designation.
By Garry Boulard
