Transcripts For CSPAN2 John 20240704

Were very pleased to have you with us this afternoon. Im bob carter. Have the privilege of serving as director of the Wallace Stegner center for Land Resources and the here at the college of law. I should note that were very pleased to be joined this afternoon only with our esteemed speaker, but cspan will be filming todays event. And were very to have them with us us. The customary way that we start these events at the college of law is with the native lands acknowledgment. We acknowledge that this land is named for the ute tribe is the traditional and ancestral homeland of the shoshone. Paiute go shoot and ute tribes the university of utah recognize jesus and respects the enduring that exists between. Many Indigenous Peoples and their traditional homelands. We respect the sovereign between tribes, states and the federal government, and we affirm the university of utahs commitment to a partnership native nations and urban indian communities through research, education and Community Outreach activity. This will conclude our bank series for this fall semester. However beginning in the spring semester, the Stegner Center will be hosting a series of noon hour green bag events. Utah water law that that lecture series which sponsored by the society, is a lead in in essence to our 28th annual symposium, which will be on the of the Great Salt Lake as. I suspect everyone in the room knows the Great Salt Lake has a dried immensely and we all face significant challenges both environmentally and economically as a result of that and the state is making moves to begin to address that. We certainly hope that the symposium offers some Meaningful Solutions to. The challenges that are presented by the drought and the receding of the lake water levels. Todays cohost, Stegner Center green bag features, Professor John leshy, whos a distinguished Professor Emeritus at the university of California College of law, and the former solicitor of the interior department. Throughout the Clinton Administration, hes well versed in a topic that he will be speaking on, which is actually the subject of his recently published book by yale press in our Common Ground history of americas public lands. Professor leslie, in addition to his activity at the university of California Hastings College of law, is has served as counsel to the chair of the Natural Resource committee of the u. S. House of representatives. Hes been a law professor before joining the hastings faculty at Arizona State university. He also, during the Carter Administration as associate solicitor of interior for energy and resources, he served as an attorney advocate with the Natural Resources council in california and as a litigator with the u. S. Department of justice civil rights division. Quite a diverse career. And that has exposed him to various levels and institutions within our government. He also served as the leader of Transition Team for the Clinton Gore Administration in 1992, and he was colead for the interior transition for the Obamabiden Administration when it into office in 2008. Hes visited at harvard law school, which is also where he graduated and earned his bachelors degree. Serves on numerous boards and commissions and has authored a book on the mining law as well case books on public land and Natural Resources law and on water law. His talk obviously addresses the sweep of history of americas public lands. And with that im pleased to welcome to the wall Stegner Centers green of program today. Professor john leshy, my friend and colleague and we very much look forward to your talk. John thank you. Thank you, bob. Bob is too modest to note that he, a very esteemed expert and with many publications in the area publicly and law, we worked together and known each other a long time and im happy to be back at the university of utah, where ive had the pleasure of speaking before and being from california where were in this epic drought. Its great to see snow on the mountains and feel the rain coming down. So im happy to be here. My book is the first of a comprehensive of americas public lands, and by that i mean the lands managed by the four big agencies, parks, Forest Service, fish and service and bureau of Land Management in a long time and you folks in utah know more about public lands generally. Speaking than most americans, but still, when you tell people that the United States owns more than 600 million acres of public lands, plains, mountains, wetlands, seashores deserts, theyre surprised because, you know, the celebration of private property and distrust of government, particularly National Government, is sort of baked into our culture. So people are surprised to learn that. And when i give talks around on this subject, the first question i usually get is i had no idea how did that happen . And so i frankly wrote this book to try to answer that question, how it of course, it didnt just happen. It it came about because the political system, our political primarily in washington represent in the National Government made political decisions that resulted in colors that you see on this map and what those decisions were. And how they came to be made are the core of my book. Now, heart of the story i tell begins late in the 19th century because when congress and the other branches government really began to become serious about, holding and conserving, signifier giant amounts of land and National Ownership. And that was after, i should say, usually after the United States acquired title to these lands in the first place from native americans and from foreign governments. Now, obviously, acquisition from native americans began soon after columbus landed in the americas long before three centuries before the United States came into being. Once the Us Government was established in the late 18th century, it continued that process and went on to acquire vast areas from foreign governments like. The louisiana purchase. Now native nations usually lost their lands through a process that began with their often brutal dispossession by an evolving cast of characters, speculators, trappers and other developers, settlers often backed by the military of the european invaders and their successor, the United States acquisition of native legal title followed. This was usually accomplished by treaties and other arrangements that providing some compensation could never fully make up for the injustice perpetrated or the enormity of the loss. My book doesnt in any detail that process of dispossession and acquisition. Its a long and complicated, and its a very different story from one i tell, which really begins generally, after all that acquisition and dispossession had occurred. Usually long after, i get a sense that here is here is the map showing indian reservations. The west in 1890, which was before this, this big process of of reserving and conserving federal public lands, began. And as you can see, the there was a lot of the white area our lands acquisition of title had been settled. Ill put a little differently. The leading villains in the story of native loss title to their Ancestral Lands were settlers and capitalists, not conservationists. Another protection advocates. Thats not to deny some of the prominent conservation advocates, like most of their contempt peries, regarded native americans their cultures as inferior. And nor would i argue that federally agencies who came to manage these public have consistently shown respect for native americans and their. But the good news is that progress is being made in this general area and say a little bit more about that later on in my talk. What i want do today is outline. The major themes that emerge from my book, especially as they relate to, and then offer some reflection about what all this might mean for the future. These major, im going to try to you that these major themes demolish some common fictions that have grown up about these lands. The first and most notorious fiction is that the public lands have generally been a divisive force in american life. One of my favorite examples to the contrary, and i offer many in the book is the socalled weekes act. But most people never heard of the weeks act. It was a bill passed by congress in 11. It was the significant Environmental Restoration legislation in the us history. And what it did was it established program where the National Government buy up lands in the upper reaches of the eastern midwestern and southern watersheds, most of which had been logged over in order to restore forests and reduce erosion and help prevent destructive floods. As this act was going through congress. Governors of the South Southern States and the New England States joined forces in a panel to testify before congress and the governor of massachusetts noted in their testimony that, this was the first time in American History that governors from those two regions had appeared jointly before to, quote, ask something for for the common welfare of, the United States. The weeks and its progeny were responsible for most of those colored lands in the eastern half of the country, as shown on this map. Now, the second Second Fiction i want to try to demolish is that public lands tended to divide americans partizan lines. Today, we kind of view all of Public Policy as red blue republicandemocrat. But a dominant theme of public land history is how republicans, democrats alike, have long on the importance not only of holding more and more lands in u. S. , but also protecting them so that all can opportunities for life changing with nature and can learn from and be inspired by the cultural, scientific resources on these lands. Here, too, my book provides many examples. Support for the weeks act. Bipartisan democrats. New england republicans. While some today tend to regard republican as more or less favorable protection of public lands, the gop has supplied many in the story i tell. And heres another one of my favorite examples examples. This fellow, fred seaton. He was a nebraska newspaper and a republican politician when Dwight Eisenhower appointed him to be secretary of the interior in the late 1950s. In that position, he protected vast tracts of alaska public lands more than 11 million acres by putting them National Wildlife refuges, most notably the Arctic National refuge up on the northeast coast. Alaska, which has been called americas serengeti. So hats off to. Now, third fiction is that the most that most public lands have been safeguarded through a kind of a land grab by the National Government carried out over state and local as opposition claim is often heard in utah and other parts of the intermountain west. In fact, however, grassroots advocate jesse and support were instrumental in in establishing nearly all of the protected public lands that we see today, including those in utah. This was the case with the first big surge of decisions reserving public lands in what, the National Forest system. This began in the 1890s. It began in 1891, congress responding to request west from the west from their growing cities in particular to protect the uplands that supply them with water. President Congress Gave the president s power to reserve public permanently in us. President Grover Cleveland in 1897. The year after utah became a state. Grover cleveland, a democrat, established the first Forest Reserve in utah, nearly 900,000 acres. The wasatch mountains. He did it with a strong support of utahs first governor, heber wells, a republican who greased the skids. The president s action by withdrawing state owned lands inside the proposed reserve from sale and settlement. Then, between his ascension, the presidency after mckinley was assassinated, 1901 and he ran for election for a full term in the fall of 1904. Theodore roosevelt tripled the amount of Forest Reserve in utah, and he did similar in other states, and he did that and he told congress is he did it because he believed it popular. He told congress in 1904 and i quote the Forest Reserve can be successful only it has the full support of the people of the west because of the people live in the neighborhood of these reserves, will ultimately determine whether or not they are to be permanent. As usual roosevelts political instincts were. Excellent. In the president ial in the fall of 1904, he carried utah by nearly 30 points. He carried other western states all, other western states by at least points, and won the National Popular vote by 20 points, the largest margin in almost a century. And in the second term, it is less it is full term. He more than doubled the of the Forest Reserves in utah. Now in the years after that, leading utah politicians played similarly prominent roles safeguarding public lands and National Ownership. The fella in the middle here reads another republican represen entered utah in the senate from 1903 to 1933. Primary of legislation that established several National Parks, including zion and bryce canyon. And he was the primary sponsor of the legislation that in 1916 established the National Service of Zion National park, which i noted is on the cover of the law school brochure. Now host, more visitors annually than any other National Park except the smokies. More than yellowstone grand canyon or yosemite. As a history professor, thomas alexander, who long taught that other law school down in provo, wrote more than a half a century ago. The utah National Parks and forests had, quote, the heart. The approval of most utahns. And finally, to take another example, fellow on the right is is don colton. Utah congressman also a republican. He was a leading proponent of legislation that paved the way for the lands now managed by the bureau of Land Management to be safeguarded in national. Indeed, had he not lost bid for reelection in the in the depths of the Great Depression in 1932, what we know is the taylor grazing act would have probably been the colton grazing. Round this same time in the 1930s. Congress was expanding programs that it had inaugurated in the weeks act to buy private lands back into National Ownership, primarily for conservation and Environmental Restoration of most of the protected public lands and the parks, the wildlife and the forests in that eastern half of the country were acquired the way from willing sellers with. The consent of the states involved. In fact, the everglades south florida and the big ben, texas two kind of iconic National Parks. Were bigger than the everglades. They were acquired by the states themselves from private owners with state taxpayer funds and donated to the National Government so they could be safeguarded as National Parks not only now for fiction in public land history is that its really the executive of the government that has done most of this with Congress Kind of sitting on the sidelines. Again, facts are to the contrary. Now, its true. The late 19th to the middle of the 20th century, congress did give the executive pretty powers to hold in and protect lands in National Ownership. Besides the weeks act of 1911. There the Antiquities Act of 1906. Some of you may have heard about it. It gave the president Broad Authority to protect features of historic or scientific interest on lands owned or controlled by United States and called them national. Thats a kind of a confusing term the Reason Congress labeled them monuments is because congress wanted to for itself, the label National Parks. Only congress can make a National Park. Congress gave the president the power to lands and just said, were going to call this monument so they wont be confused with parks and were going to keep our prerogative since the Antiquities Act has been on the books in 1906. Every almost every president , republican and democrat has used it to protect more than 100 million acres of public lands onshore. And many times that of submerged lands off the coasts. Most every Time Congress has used that. Im sorry. Most every time president s have used the Antiquities Act to protect public. Congress has later effectively ratified that action. Heres an example. Most of you probably know that for years, utah office of tourism has run a very Successful Campaign to encourage visitation to what it calls and, in fact, has trademarked the name mighty five National Parks. What you may not know is that four of those parks were first protected by the president using the antiquities set. This is not unusual, by the way. Its not not unique to utah. About there, there are 63 iconic places called parks out half them, roughly half of them were first protected by president s using the Antiquities Act and then congress along later and slapped the park label on them so congress could get some the credit to. Now, starting in the 1960s, response to a demand by a conservative democrat from colorados western slope, congressmen named wayne aspinall, who for 14 years was chair of the Relevant Committee of the house. He engineered and persuaded congress to recapture a lot of that authority that they had delegated to the branch. His first big success came with the wilderness act of 1964, there, congress created a very a new, very protective category. Public lands in some ways, the most protective, because, generally speaking, in wilderness, you cant build roads. You cant use motorized vehicles, you cant extractive activities like logging and mining. Now, ironically, aspinall himself was not in the buzziest of designating wilderness areas, but to him, the most important thing was congress should make that decision. And so, in fact, congress, the gatekeeper, thanks to aspinall. Not a single acre can go into National Capital w a wilderness system unless congress has passed it law. Authorizing. What he did. And this is not very well appreciated unless you worked around the congress a lot. What that did was to enhance the influence, the political influence of local representatives in congress, the local congressional delegations, because theres a longstanding custom in congress that legislation does not pass that apply to a particular area unless. The congressional representatives from that area acquiesce. They have an informal veto almost all the time. There are him very small handful of exceptions, but thats general rule. And you ask, why is that . Well, if you think about it for a moment, youve got a collective body with geographical representatives. No representative from ohio doesnt want to vote to ram something down the throat of a representative from utah for fear that the same thing will happen to them. So theres this sort of unspoken agreement that local legislation has to have acquiescence from local, local members. And thats what aspinall did in the wilderness set. Now, he seriously underestimates the support that would develop at the grassroots for limiting such intensive uses of public lands. In fact, since 1964, congress has enacted many dozens of pieces of individual legislation with the acquiescence of local Members Congress that have put more than 100 million acres of public land. The wilderness system i showed in this. Now, the big upward tick in might in 1980 was the result the alaska lands bill. Alaska so vast 375 million acres that it skews all the statistics about public lands as kind of shown here but the most interesting thing about this chart to me is the arc is always up. You know, you got one big upward trend trend in 1980. But look at what happens after that. Its still upward and still goes up today. Now, the wilderness in 64 ushered in in new era of congress out in particular laws, what users can and cannot take place on particular areas of public lands. For example, since 64, congress has enacted many dozens of laws that give areas labels Like National area, National Conservation area, national preserve, National Scenic area and so forth. Each of these individual laws sets out the terms under which those particular labeled areas can be managed primarily by making conservation and recreation and the primary uses of those lands and limiting Agency Discretion by ruling out or strongly discouraging mining, harvest, Timber Harvesting the like. All of these protections worth underlining were put in place because a bipartisan consensus favored them, including consensus in the particular where these labeled areas are found. Heres an example. In 1976, gerald ford, republican and signed into law a Major Overhaul of the law governing the agency that manages more acres of public land than any any other one and thats the bureau of Land Management. This was the federal land policy and Management Act is in elegantly called flip it adopted all of the recommendations of a of a bipartisan body dominate by westerners that congress had establish just a few years before chaired by none other than wayne aspinall. Likewise, the Congressional Conference Committee that put the finishing touches on that legislation was also dominated by western members of the house and the senate. The broad thrust of this was for greener management. The public lands managed by blm. As my puts it, one of the most important developments public land policy in the last half century is how the blm longed, derided as the bureau of lands of livestock and mining, has with the strong encouragement of the us congress, made conservation of Cultural Resources and recreation a major focus of its management. And this is captured here with that the logo of the bureau of management used to be the engineer and surveyor and miner and all of that. And now look at what the logo is the right. In fact, some have suggested that the bureau of Land Management should now be referred to as the bureau of landscapes and monuments. Now as that blm metamorph more focuses shows, congress is not generally discriminated among the four principal agencies in emphasizing conservation, recreation of public lands. Thus today, all four agencies manage millions tens of millions of acres of wilderness and national areas, National Recreation areas, and these other labeled areas that emphasize protection and conservation. And congress has given each agency clear marching orders to Pay Attention to environment and and to science in their decision making. And this is all blurred, kind of blurred the distinctions among these four agencies. The net effect today is that regardless of which agency in charge, americas public are generally managed more for conservation and recreation. Anything else . And congressional activism in the last 60 years is also enhanced. The durability these protections Call Congress are hardly ever reversed itself. And this is sort of a captured in this light, which really does kind of sum up the major theme. My book, the solid line, are the decisions by acreage to to hold in National Ownership or acquire more. Again always up. And our end the dotted line is congressional primarily congressional decisions to protect areas primarily for conservation and recreation. The arc consistently up both cases and goes up today. Now im guessing that some of you are ready to accuse me of painting overly rosy picture of political consensus on public lands, especially here in utah. After all, conflicting division is kind the order of the day on just about everything. Why should public land policy be different now . I deny that the body politic has become much more polarized in the last half century or so. But my book makes the case or tries to make the case, and i think its strong case, frankly, that has not significantly affected the overall direction of public land policy. Now, let me explain with a very quick tour of history the last 50 years, in the late 1970s, some of you may remember there, was something called the sagebrush rebellion. It was given this label by a d. C. Journalist who was looking a snappy headline. It was promoted primarily by holders of permits to graze public lands who were unhappy with the direction the policy, particularly the enactment. This federal land policy and Management Act in 1976. And what it was claim the states actually the public lands and a handful actually passed laws which which made that claim formally in legislation. Now rebellion sounds serious, but in fact it never got any traction as a political movement. The states enacting that legislation never tried to litigate their claim or take any other concrete step to enforce it. Congress never took it seriously. Neither did the branch, and neither did the american, including the people in the very states that were ostensibly rebelling underneath this blast of hot air, of protest. The long tradition of. Bipartisan consensus. Supporting more protection for more public lands endured it easily survived. Another hiccup early in his first term. Libertarian economist persuaded Ronald Reagan to propose selling off 35 million acres of what he said was surplus public lands to help balance budget. The proposal triggered much opposition across the country at the grass roots. It found no support among republicans or Democrats Congress and went nowhere. Much the same fate met the proposal. Reagans first interior secretary, a fellow james watt, who wanted the issue. Oil and gas leases on tens of millions of acres just about everywhere. What became a serious political liability left office . Reagan, an astute politician, moved swiftly to the middle on public lands issues and and here is an example of his moving to the middle. The big is thrust up as the alaska lands bill. Then theres another smaller thrust. That was Ronald Reagan signing 8 million acres into a wilderness with the republicans in the control of the senate in 1980 384. In fact, that was the largest single addition in any single year since since the wilderness was enacted in 1964. And reagan went on to the arc continues upward. Went on to sign into law more putting legislation putting more acreage in the lower 48 states in wilderness than any president before him or after him. Now in 1985, the governor of arizona and future interior secretary bruce babbitt, gave a speech that kind of nicely captured what was happening the last few years. Babbitt said would be remembered a time when public Land Protection advocates broaden their base, sharpen their message and, mounted a strong Grassroots Campaign to replace the idea of multiple use, which is kind of a wellworn catchphrase that was used to describe that public lands managed by the Forest Service, the blm, were fully open to logging and mining and other forms of intensive development to replace that multiple use idea with the idea of public use. Babbitt said that, quote, the new reality that the highest, best and most protected productive use of western public lands will usually be for public purposes, like protecting watersheds wildlife and recreation. That it had it right. And republicans and democrats got the message. Today, in fact, uses like mining, drilling and large scale commercial take place on a relatively small of blm and Forest Service lands. The pattern held through subsequent administrations. 1994, Newt Gingrich leads a campaign using whats called the contract with america to take control of the house for republicans. It bristled antigovernment rhetoric was totally silent on public lands. No surprise. The message of the contract with america was well well pulled in advance by. A brilliant gop message. A guy named frank luntz is still around and he put the matter. He advised the gop not to challenge what he called were, quote, the most popular federal programs today, specifically conservation of public lands and waters through parks and open spaces. Republicans have generally his advice ever since the tea party insurgency 2010 led to a republican recapture of the house but did not result in significant efforts to roll back protections for public lands. Now, Republican Party platform, the last couple decades has occasionally alluded to, you know, lets think about selling off some public lands. Its kind of a dog whistle to the far right fringe. But no serious effort has ever been made to put those planks into practice. Again, the chart tells the story arc going up in early 2009, president obama signed an omnibus public lands protection Management Act into la most of its parts had been assembled earlier when the republican controlled the white house and one house of congress. It put millions more acres in the wilderness system, established for new National Conservation areas and added three units of the the National Park system. But i know some of you are wondering, okay, but didnt the Trump Administration break that pattern . After all, wasnt its biggest splash to downsize the two Large National monuments in southern utah, the Grand Staircaseescalante and, the bear suit that president clinton and obama had established . Didnt it make numerous other efforts to build been public land policy toward away from conservation and toward more industrial expansion . To some extent thats true, but i believe a good case can be made that donald trump correctly grasped, that most voters who identify as republicans in the west, as elsewhere, do support either transferring publicly ends to the state or the private sector or stripping protections away from of them. Consider this in 2016, when President Trump was competing in a hotly contested race for the republican nomination and rival for the nomination, like ted cruz were saying things like, we we should give full control of the public lands to their rightful owners, its citizens. Trump gave an interview and field and stream magazine, a leading organ for field sports enthusiasts in which he explicitly opposed selling off public lands or stripping them of protection. He called them, he said the United States continue to be great stewards of those magnificent lands. And once office, he installed a guy, ryan zinke, to be interior secretary. Zinke had gained prominence because he had resigned from the republican Platform Commission at the convention in 2016 because it was considering a plank to propose selling off some public lands and zinke he resigned in protest. Now trump shrank utah monuments. He didnt abolish them and he didnt tinker with any of the other National Monuments that had been established by his predecessors. And and most important before he left office he signed to really pieces of bipartisan public Land Protection legislation law. The first in 2019 was another one of these omnibus public lands protection bills added more than million acres to the wilderness system. Its demanded several National Parks system units, etc. , etc. Its most noteworthy piece, by the way added protections to nearly a million acres of public land in emery county, southern utah, crafted that primarily by republic congressman john curtis, not long after trump had shrunk to nearby bears ears. Another component of the 2019 bill ended, congresss 55 year old practice of of requiring of putting an Expiration Date on something called the land and Water Conservation fund. This is something that congress enacted in 1964 which produces stream of revenue for acquiring for state, local and the National Governments to more land in the Public Ownership for conservation and recreation. As a result of that, 290 2019 legislation, the l. A. Art of Conservation Fund does not have to be renewed periodically. Its now permanent. The next year, trump signed into law something called the Great American act. It made it even a strong bipartisan support. It made an even more important change in the and Water Conservation fund because since 1964, congress had insisted that as the revenue accrued in this fund, congress each year had to decide how much gets out of it in 2020. With strong, bipartisan support, congress it a true Revolving Fund so that the revenue comes in can be spent out without further congressional approval. Thats been called the most significant, important Land Conservation measure in generation. Now, as you must have, you know that no president biden, the two utah monuments a year ago and also restored or is working to restore other public Land Protections that trump sought to weaken some of these efforts. No doubt are being complicated by the war in ukraine rising gas prices and all of that. But generally speaking, think its fair to say that most of those biden actions restoring protections have not triggered much backlash. Now, americans have long argued about the role that the national should play in american life. But my book makes, the case that for more than a century, the public lands have been regarded as exception to that general rule. Now of course, like just about every issue, a broad majority of americans, theres always going to be a small, sometimes noisy group of dissenters, people who are hostile to just about everything the government does. But according to practically every opinion poll taken across the as well as across rest of the nation, large majorities of americans across both political want more and better protected public lands. Heres a slide showing the latest in a long, long series of annual polls that are taken by colorado college. They call the state of the rockies project where they a poll, republicans and democrats in every state and ask them a series of questions mostly about public Land Protection. And as you can see. Americans in these western states of both Political Parties agree that holding and protecting large of public land and National Ownership really has been extraordinary visionary and beneficial. So i think weve got to call this political Success Story showing the political process is working the way its supposed to work, where congress to and accurately Public Opinion and more attention to Success Stories is particularly important in our polarized europe, where many are skeptical that anything good can ever come out of washington. Its a major reason, frankly. I wrote the book. Its not creeping all who live as you do here in with abundant public lands know that they provide many opportunities for. Private enterprise, the emphasis on protecting public lands, how tourism and dependent businesses have a Major Economic driver in smaller communities in the west, as well as elsewhere, making the economic of traditional activities like mining, logging and livestock grazing generally pale by comparison. In fact, a no, no. Let me pivot to, look forward. The while. While this is a big political Success Story in, my estimation the public lands face some major challenges. Weve all seen slides like this with. Showing you know Carbon Emissions going up and up. The biggest are obviously Climate Change and biodiversity loss. Theyre global problems and they both pose countless tests for public lands. The changing climate among other things, alters the qualities the qualities of public lands that are usually major reason why we held on to them, protected them in the first place. Your childrens yellowstone. The new york times. In a headline a while back, will be radically different. Public lands are invaluable of biodiversity, but its threatened by whats being called the sixth great extinction in the history of the planet. But the history americas public lands, i think can, help inform how we as a nation and a world confront these serious challenges. Public lands for the provide vivid demonstrations of the effects of Climate Change. Scientists saying the glaciers are going to disappear from glacier National Park within the next decade. So. This can help sound alarm and arouse Public Opinion and stimulate needed Political Action for another more important dealing effectively with these challenges. Climate change and biodiversity loss requires mustering the political will to decide that societies collective long term interest must outweigh shorter term, narrower interests and the history americas public lands shows. How time and again our political system has done exactly. Preserving iconic places like zion and the Grand Staircase for general enjoyment. And to acquiring re acquiring habitat to recover populate of migratory birds and and restoring forest lands in the eastern part of the country and doing other like that, taking into account acting in the interest of future generations. I think its some of the best examples of thinking and acting in the interest of future generations that the american political system has ever produced. The because these problems are global. The United States can take pride and should take pride in its historic role in this area, spearheaded by its public land policy. And we can see now emerging Global Networks protected public lands that include several biosphere reserves and World Heritage sites that celebrate nature, now found in more than 100 nations. Now, the one other challenge let me just mention briefly, and thats the the socalled recreational explosion in smhi previourerds. I mean, these these the slope here is steeply uphill. Its wonderful americans want to recreate on public lands. We need to safeguard those opportuny gardless for everybody, regardless of bank balances. But it can be to manage large numbers of visitors, reonal users, while preserving meaningful Visitor Experiences and so we dont love these lands to death, destroying the very qualities that are that attract visitors. And this poses obviously some new challenges. If you talk to public land managers today, instead talking about how theyre balancing, you know, logging versus recreation or things like that, this kind of traditional things they did theyre now talking about how we protect wildlife and Cultural Resource is and accommodate hikers and hunters and anglers and off road Vehicle Users and got beggars and climbers and wild horse and birdwatchers and tiger shooters and all the rest. There is good news on this front. The 2020 legislation that trump signed into law established something called the Legacy Restoration fund, a major step to address the maintenance backlog. And in the management of these public lands, its called the largest single investment in public lands in American History. Now, before i close, let me say a few words about the symbolism of deb haaland, the current secretary of the interior, being the first native american to hold a cabinet post in American History. In the latter part of my book, as i mentioned earlier, i discussed in some how starting in the decades after World War Two native nations increasingly demanded and sometimes one, a greater consideration of their strong connections to Ancestral Lands that are now in Public Ownership. They have, for example, worked with congress and the executive to safeguard cultural sites exert more influence how public lands are managed. In a few cases has conveyed lands. A special cultural significance back to the tribes in fact, the interests of native nations and the advocates for protection of public lands overlap not not perfectly, of course, but they overlap a great to take just one example federal management agencies are just as is happening in many nations around the world, drawing more on the traditional knowledge of Indigenous People for guidance in managing these large areas. Protect biodiversity, dealing with the challenges of Climate Change, using fires, a management tool, etc. The nations public lands offer opportunities for redressing injustices and healing societal wounds, and i expect a great deal to be done in this area in the coming years. Now, let me close by coming back to where i started the political process ultimately sets public land policy. The future of public lands will be by officials. We choose to govern us, the American People get the final. Theres nothing in the constitution that we need or have to have public lands. Congress can pass statutes tomorrow that privatize them all. No no acre of public land is immune. Not even iconic places like zion and congress and the president also starve public land managers of funds to grapple the challenges that i describe that would make it harder for them to fulfill their stewardship, mission which in turn undermines Public Confidence and with it public support for public lands. What it boils down to is this each new generation of americans must effectively decide once to do with these lands without political support, they in the values they bring to our way of life, will be lost. Put a little differently, the future will be determined largely how americans, including rising generations such as, are attending this law school, react to the changes now underway. There are some daunting questions. Will voters to support protecting public lands as Climate Change takes its toll . As biodiversity suffers as more and more iconic places on public lands become more and more crowded. What if reject ing rather than respecting the teachings of science become a dominant attitude . What if partizan rhetoric intensifies . What if voices get even louder . Minds become even more closed . If the american political system becomes more dysfunctional . Will candidates for political office, especially in places where public are abundant, continue to believe that protesting these protecting these lands enhances the quality of life. The answers will determine whether the long standing bipartisan consensus on the general direction of public land policy. This upward arc will endure or will it unravel as president put it in 1971, the public lands give the nations nation breathing space a vast public asset that nurtures pride, physical and, mental health, a spirit of community in an increasingly diverse nation and offers countless millions people life changing encounters with nature. At the same time that, public lands tourism has become the economic anchor of many communities. Public land policy is also admittedly totally begun to better reflect societal and to acknowledge past injustices. Although native americans and people of color were largely excluded from in many of the key decisions of public land in the past, thats happily longer the case. These lands remain subject to the will of the electorate a Group Defined more broadly than ever before. And so in these lands can help redress past injustice and again demonstrate our ability as a people to Work Together and, find Common Ground. In his seminal work the wealth of nations, published the same year as the declaration of independence, the scottish philosopher adam smith, who was the champion of free market capitalism, made a strong case for the private ownership of land, but for a single exception, a great and civilized nation, he wrote, ought to hold and own and hold land for the purpose of pleasure and magnificence, for everyones benefit. That the National Government responding to Public Opinion has heeded smiths advice. Is a bipartisan success deserving of celebration. A welcome counter to the political polarization. Distrust that currently plagues. Thank you very much for listening, and im happy to try to answer questions. John thank you very much for that. In lecture and for sharing observations about the trajectory of public land policy, i neglected when we before started to advise everyone, both here in the audience and virtually. That you can ask questions. Making use of the instructions that are on the behind. Professor. And if another attendee has asked a question. You can put a thumbs up icon that you like that question and. I will proceed to pose questions to professor lesley. I should also note that the kings english bookshop has joined us virtually to sell john leshy book, our Common Ground a history of americans public lands information and order. The book is online. The websites for both the stegner and the kings english bookshop. With that, let me turn to questions that have been posed at this point by the audience. And let me invite additional questions. But to begin with your ask, in this time of deep division and given our extensive experience with that, what are your suggestions for some types of reconciliation that might address. Lessen that division . Probably no surprise. Think it would be to sort of lower our voices and open our minds a little. The successes that have been achieved and there have many, as i mentioned have usually come from people sitting around a table and in discussing differences openly and seeing how they can be reconciled and looking for Common Ground. One of the reasons i call the book that and i the success is our ongoing mean theyre happening there are i mentioned its kind of ironic you know the year two years after less than two years after President Trump shrank those two la two large monuments in southern utah, Congress Approved legislation spearheaded by the local republican congressman that protected more than a million acres in emory county. And that was done by this of quiet discussion roundtables and finding the Common Ground. So i think weve got a proven record of how that works and we should just that and not be kind of carried away with and sort of inflamed rhetoric, which is too often the case on lots issues, not just public lands issues. Ill follow that up. Do you see then looking forward much of the legislation respecting public lands coming of local types of negotiated agreement as opposed to any Major National legislation addressing public land policy. Sure, its all the time. I mean, congressman mike simpson got a bill involving the boulder right clouds area in idaho through congress not long ago. Before that, there was a similar legislation involving other lands in the river and that and in southeastern idaho theres a congressman senator widen from. Oregon has an active bill now thats being considered to do something similar in Eastern Oregon. So this of stuff is percolating. You know, you dont hear about it, but it is percolating now. It is harder to get things through congress than it used to be, for sure. But things do get through. Remember, i mean, 20 in 2020 were two huge successes for public lands trump signed into law. Those two pieces of legislation i. So all is not lost is my message. I think progress is still possible and and likely frankly. Right. Youre ask when you a part of the Clinton Administration and participated in the designation of the Grand Staircase Escalante National monument did utahs delegation support that action were any concessions made to help appease the utah politicians . Well, thats a good example, because was, you know, deeply, pretty deeply personally involved in that when we were putting monument together. We met with the delegation and and heard a lot from them about what their concerns were and how we might address them in the monument itself, for example, i think the top concern was we dont want the park service to manage it. So secretary babbitt recommended to the president and the president agreed to keep the management and the bureau of Land Management. It wouldnt say disrupt water rights. Theres a provision in the proclamation that preserves and not with any existing water rights. And on and on. There were about ten things that the delegation was really concerned about. I think we had basically accommodated them in one way or another in the proclamation. What happened in the aftermath is also important in the aftermath, we said in the proclamation, these these have a lot state lands in them. We want to exchange them out and give the state lands that they can better use, more productively elsewhere. And we a big Land Exchange that involved hundreds of thousands of acres of state and federal land that Congress Approved. Congress the utah delegation then said we want to tinker with the boundaries. And congress, we supported and negotiated some boundary changes, modest boundary that Congress Approved in 2000 im sorry, 1999, i think it was. So in the aftermath of of that proclamation, even though it caused some controversy, there was tremendous progress made on the ground in terms of and agreeing and coming together to to do these these changes. So i think thats a good example of how the process can and should work. Your description of a general collegiality in comedy seems to brush over continuing concerns about. The efficacy of management in the interest of conservation. Thoughts this matter . You know. I mean, this is government government does some things well and some things not so well. And i think that, you know, the the history of theres room for improvement and its a its a slow process and it requires a lot of engagement by the public. Frankly because agencies do tend listen to what what the public. And if there concerns being expressed, they will respond. So nothing, nothing perfect that the government does, but it does some awfully good things over time. And i would hold the public lands as an example of of generally Good Government working. But like i said, requires a lot of public attention, engagement and frankly, money. But again, good news here. I mean, these days, the legislation in 2000, 19, 2000, 20 provide really well com very needed injection of public funds into these agencies which enable them to do their job better. Getting specific on a Resource Management issue, how do you see issues related . Wild horses and burros and how do we more Management Compromise utah, nevada and elsewhere. This issue really tough question i manage in my many years in government to kind of avoid of that as much as i could of the wild horse issue because its it involves its complicated it involves very passionate feelings particularly wild horse advocates and it pits the wild horse really against the livestock is the kind of the the real nub of the problem and nobodys ever found a good solution. Wild horses proliferate. Theres been a lot of attention and put into contraception, which might be, you know, an eventual, if not overall solution, at least of help bring the problem under control. I have no great ideas about how to solve that problem, and im hoping the stuff can work. But well see that you mentioned the fact that the native were on the land long before we created any sort of public land system. So youre just let me make sure ive got my question here. Excuse me. The question is, why arent native nations given priority over all of these lands . It feels they should be given a more definitive in the future of our public lands. Its a very complicated question. And frankly, when i been involved in the past in my government service, you know, also taught indian law. So i know a good deal about the history of the legal development. There is no one size fits all solution. I mean, short answer, you know, for those who say we should turn back to the Indigenous Peoples, the first question is who . I mean, there are. Last count i saw was 27 different native nations have an interest in yellowstone and i remember from way back in the Carter Administration one adage i heard when i first started working on native american was if you know one indian tribe, you know, one indian tribe, and you know, getting tribes to agree on Something Like what do we do with if we got it back, it would be a very daunting kind of task. The progress has been made at a very local level and progress is made. Most of these laws that are that have passed regard in specific areas of public lands, many of them have involved the transfer of some lands back the local native nations, where its negotiated. Congress can do it, but its a political process means it has to be negotiated. But give me an example. In the 1980s, when was at the interior department, the the confederate tribes up in northwestern montana wanted to take over management of what was called the bison range, which had been acquired from these tribes back in the 1905. I think it was for money, although some dispute about whether the price was fair or not. But it had been acquired from the from tribes into National Ownership and managed as a bison restoration area. The tribes wanted to take over management. We negotiated for a long time the terms of that transfer of management, not title, but management. And the Bush Administration set all that aside. The Obama Administration tried to revive it. There were still opposition back and forth. Finally, in 2020, i think it was 2019, congress was about to approve a water rights with that tribe and basically of threw up its hands and said, okay, lets just give the tribe title to the bison region which did. So the transfer of the has been transferred back to the bison because it fit into larger political framework involving the water rights and that sort of thing that will happen and more. I think the legislation i was just looking at last night that senator biden has introduced in in two ad more protections to areas of public lands in Eastern Oregon involves the transfer of thousands of acres. The i think the burns by tribe. So well see more of that. But itll be negotiated at at a kind of a specific local level. But i think more of that will happen. President biden has called for the protection of 30 of u. S. Water and land 2030. Can you share with us the best pathway forward in making headway on this goal . This is difficult. The first question and the one thats been raised over and over again and theres no clear answer to is what is conserved mean. You know, how do how do you define it . Does it mean like wilderness and kind of truly protected from all kinds of uses or does it mean something less than the do lands that maybe not logged or mined, but grazed by a livestock . Is that should that be considered conserved all lands grazed by livestock or only lands are better protected. So really thats a very complex question. I really support the idea the of saying we should protect you know, a percentage of our land we should make that a goal that something by the way the United States hasnt really invented but i think more than 100 nations around the world have basically endorsed that goal for own territory to protect 30 by 2030. Ultimately, the goal is protect 50 by 2050. And came from one of my big heroes, which is e. O. Wilson. This naturalist who wrote a book of several years ago. How do we save the. The is called half earth. And the question he presented was how how do we really preserve this important remnant of biodiverse city around the planet . And he said, if we pick the right 50 of land to to conserve, we can do it. And thats this idea of protect half by 2050. And then protect 30 by 2030 came from. So its a a planetary planet wide kind of movement that the biden has signed on to. Now, getting a to b, is this not that easy . But but i applaud effort and the details to some extent remain to be determined. Lets finish up with one final question. Do you believe our bedrock policies in protecting our public lands are nimble enough to allow for some modernizing portion of the challenges and threats theyve faced, including Climate Change, intensified use . Do we need a systemic overhaul . Well, abstract i would say, you know, a systemic overhaul be good. But if you look at the history of how these things work politically, this and this is politics it rarely works way. It usually is incremental a bit at a time, you know, carefully negotiated with a lot of engagement, all different stakeholders and all of that. I think almost certainly well see more of that. So dont i dont think big grandiose solutions and changes systematically are possible politically, particularly in era, but incremental is very possible and is happening literally as we speak. And thats what i would predict will continue. John, thank you very much for todays lecture for responding to these questions from our audience and for all work that you have done over the years for our public lands and in public service. Let me note that johns book, our common a history of americas public, is available for purchase through the kings english Bookshop Online here in Salt Lake City and elsewhere. And please join me thanking Professor John leshy this very enlightening presentation. Thank you. Thank you