Public land disputes are among the greatest sources of political contention in the West and, in particular, Utah. Because nearly three-quarters of the state is federally owned, how these public lands are used for competing interests generates conflict. Julie Brugger argues these tensions are best resolved through democratic processes through her study of President Bill Clinton's 1996 designation of the Grand Staircase–Escalante National Monument and the monument's management in the intervening years. Her research exposes the layers of what each group that used that land understood democracy to mean and how those definitions were challenged through competing interests. Any attempt to create an equitable resolution usually resulted in each group being, at least in part, unsatisfied with the outcomes. However, in her words, antagonistic approaches eventually lead to a system of “agonism” when everyone participates in moving toward working democratic solutions.The book is broken up into three different parts: “Landscape,” “Conflict,” and “Democracy.” Each part discusses how people view conflicts related to the national monument and how groups see it through their unique understanding of democracy. In “Landscape,” Brugger lays the historical foundation on how different people used the land for a variety of often-competing purposes, such as livestock ranching, coal mining, and outdoor recreation. Competition over the land required democratic action for equitable use. Throughout the book, Brugger highlights that the first Euro-American settlers, the Latter-day Saints, emphasized community and cooperation. However, ranching and mining ran counter to recreational and environmental concerns that became national interests in the latter half of the twentieth century. These underlying strains tore open once President Clinton established the national monument on September 18, 1996, in a move that took everyone by surprise. It exposed how deep and vast those political and social rifts had become. After the designation, the reaction from surrounding communities and state leaders was immediate and heated. Their biggest objections were that they had been cut off from the decision making and that their economic considerations were not heard.The “Conflict” section dives into the monument's first decade of management, particularly surrounding conflicts over grazing and road access. These two issues, in particular, highlight well Brugger's argument for democratic solutions to complex problems. When individuals or groups acted autocratically, the result was greater conflict. The national monument was managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), known for multiple-use management, instead of the National Park Service. However, under the monument's first manager, Kate Cannon, BLM leaders implemented plans to remove grazing livestock. Ranchers saw Cannon's livestock confiscation as heavy-handed federal overreach and protested by breaking into government corrals to recover their animals and pressuring monument officials through local and congressional representatives. Subsequent managers introduced regulations allowing local ranchers more input and market solutions to reduce grazing in vulnerable areas.Brugger notes that access and use of the monument lands was determined by who controlled the roads. Local leadership acted undemocratically by tearing down road signs and refusing to maintain and clear roads within the monument. Brugger's study adds to the conversation about controlling road access on public lands, such as Jedediah Rogers's Roads in the Wilderness: Conflict in Canyon Country, which explored the same issue in southeastern Utah. Brugger concludes that the democratic process, involving litigation over each road and ongoing dialogue between local and federal leaders, ultimately lowered tensions, although it did not fully resolve the conflict, which remained ongoing at the time of her publication.In “Democracy,” Brugger examines the groups involved in the monument controversy: locals, ranchers, environmentalists, and BLM employees. She uses personal interviews, observations from public meetings, and newspaper articles. Brugger is sympathetic to each group, showing their willingness to adopt a democratic approach and consider others’ viewpoints, leading to more amicable solutions. While she allows her sources’ voices to be heard, this anecdotal method has limitations without supporting evidence. Brugger's work highlights varying viewpoints shaping the democratic debate over the monument's management rather than examining or critiquing each group's claims.Brugger also borrows from and adds to the work of other noted historians and writers about public lands in the American West, and in particular Utah, including Leisl Carr Childers, William Cronon, Andrew Dobson, Richard White, Ramachandra Guha, and Terry Tempest Williams. Brugger's approach adds nuance to conflicts often depicted as simple battles between local and federal employees, ranchers and environmentalists, or Republicans and Democrats. She demonstrates how tensions existed internally within groups. Likewise, there are often overlapping interests among competing groups, creating workable solutions to complex problems.This work is a welcome addition to the overall discussion on public land debates—particularly in Utah, where the Grand Staircase–Escalante National Monument and the more recent Bears Ears National Monument continue to excite the passions of nearly everyone who uses and values these lands.
Michael Lyle Shamo (Thu,) studied this question.