More than 1,000 people attended a public hearing near Palm Springs, California, on Tuesday to discuss U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s proposal to have President Barack Obama use his executive authority to declare a large part of the Mojave Desert into the Mojave Trails National Monument, reported The Desert Sun.
The Mojave Trails National Monument would include Route 66 from the outskirts of Needles to Barstow in Southern California. Feinstein proposed the monument six years ago, but the legislation remains stalled in Congress.
A national monument would prevent new development in the area save for “authorized exceptions.” Current property owners wouldn’t be affected. Such a monument also would call for the building of a visitors center.
Based on the reporting from Tuesday, most people at the hearing supported Feinstein’s plan:
The vast majority of attendees supported the creation of the three national monuments, but a vocal minority opposed the use of executive authority under the 1906 Antiquities Act.
“The current political climate is making it difficult to move any lands legislation through either body of the Congress,” Feinstein said. “My intention is to continue to push the bill, while simultaneously pushing a presidential designation. But let me be clear: My preference is very much to push the legislation.”
Federal officials from the Departments of Interior and Agriculture also spoke at the meeting:
While they didn’t say one way or another whether Obama will create the three proposed monuments via executive authority, they reiterated their support for Feinstein’s bill, and said the administration is committed to protecting the desert.
“We know we have a gridlocked Congress at times,” said Mike Connor, deputy secretary of the Interior. “So we have to think about other ways to protect a landscape of this magnitude and this importance.”
U.S. Rep. Paul Cook, R-Apple Valley, who attended the meeting, introduced an alternative bill Oct. 1 that would give many of the same protections as designated national monument. But it seems more of a reaction to the possibility Obama would use his executive powers than a serious plan. Where was he years ago?
I’ve heard Route 66 aficionados — liberal and conservative — who support the Mojave Trails National Monument designation. There’s no reason to hold faith the chronically gridlocked Congress will pass Cook’s bill without a big change of heart from lawmakers or big electoral changes in late 2016. With a lack of viable alternatives, it seems Obama needs to make a move.
(Image of the Mojave Desert outside Amboy, California, by Michael Moore via Flickr)
Would love to see this monument, but I’m sick of Obama (period) acting like a dictator and circumventing the Constitution and Congressional powers with his executive orders. I believe this legislation would have strong support by people in any party. Just give it time and publicity. It’s not like anything is immediately threatening the desert, is there?
Reality Check No. 1: 14 of 19 presidents since the establishment of the U.S. park system have used their executive authority to designate national monuments. So doing it is not unusual for a commander-in-chief of either party, nor is it the act of a “dictator,” as you put it.
Reality Check No. 2: Feinstein’s legislation has been languishing in Congress for six years. So your request to “give it time” seems terribly redundant.
I think your reply was based on the lack of clarity in mine.
Though the history of presidential executive orders and monument creation usually coincide (and I can understand how it would just follow the norm in this case, which is fine by me), the “just write an executive order” attitude about it all further adds to the narrative of Obama doing anything he pleases whenever he feels like it, no matter the circumstances. I hope you understand why this feeling gnaws at me.
Secondly, the time factor is exactly what I meant when I added the “publicity”. Why not use the fact that this bill has been sitting for so long to gain some momentum and traction? We hear all the time about the gridlock in DC. Why not try to use this as a medium in an attempt to bridge the gap between the parties? You know, put it to good use as this issue should span the aisle in Congress and find plenty of support. (People usually come together on things like this.)
Again, is there any immediate threat in the area proposed for the site? If there is, then faster options should be considered. If not, then why the big rush/push?
Obvious that this is from a newspaper article on the meeting. Mr Cook did not attend but his chief of staff did and spoke on his behalf.
As one of the people that help put this together, I am a consultant to The Wildlands Conservancy as well as a active member of the coalition working on the project, we were very happy with the turn out both those for and aganist the Senators bill. Both sides were treaded equally. Putting on one of these event takes a lot of work as well as the cost is huge.
Yes there were more folks in attendance for the bill as they marshaled their forces to come out in support. The opposition could have done the same as they too had the same amount of time to prepare for the meeting.
Finally the meeting was a success and everyone had the opportunity to either by voice or written to share their opinions. We think the meeting was a success and now we move forward.
Bringing all sides to the table and making sure all issues are addressed is an ongoing process.
As a side note TWC and I promote the MOTHER ROAD/MOJAVE TRAILS NATIONAL MONUMENT. Both as a added name and the bill itself.