Arizona Legislators Seek to Challenge Monument Designation
Republican leaders in Arizona’s state legislature are pursuing an appeal after a federal judge dismissed their attempt to nullify a decision by former President Biden. The decision in question involves the creation of a nearly million-acre national monument in northern Arizona.
House Speaker Steve Montenegro and Senate President Warren Petersen, represented by attorney Justin Smith, are contesting U.S. District Court Judge Stephen McNamee’s ruling. Judge McNamee determined that the legislative leaders lacked the legal standing to challenge the establishment of the Baaj Nwaavjo I’tah Kukveni–Ancestral Footprints of the Grand Canyon National Monument.
McNamee suggested that any right to challenge the designation resides with the executive branch. However, neither Arizona Governor Katie Hobbs nor Attorney General Kris Mayes have taken steps to contest the 2023 designation.
Smith argues before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that federal law permits anyone harmed by the designation to file a lawsuit. He claims that the legislature is affected due to potential economic impacts, such as decreased tax revenues resulting from restrictions on mining activities.
Uranium mining bans within the monument could also have significant economic repercussions, according to Smith, potentially forcing Arizona to source uranium from foreign entities, including “hostile powers like Russia.” This reliance could lead to increased power costs, impacting the legislature and Arizona residents alike.
Additionally, Smith notes that Mohave County, along with the towns of Colorado City and Fredonia, are also contesting the monument’s designation, joining the appeal to overturn Judge McNamee’s ruling.
Even if the appellate court sides with Smith, it would only revert the case to McNamee to assess the legality of Biden’s designation. Meanwhile, Petersen is collaborating with the Trump administration to potentially resolve the legal dispute, though the extent of Trump’s authority to reverse Biden’s decision remains uncertain.
The legal challenge originates from a lawsuit filed by Montenegro and Petersen, who claim Biden’s actions constitute an illegal “land grab.” Although they acknowledge the Antiquities Act of 1906 allows presidential land designations, they argue such actions should be limited to historic landmarks and structures and confined to the “smallest area compatible” with their care.
To advance their case, they must first convince the 9th Circuit that they have the standing to sue. Smith contends that the designation’s economic impact on the state grants them this right, arguing that reduced mining will lead to fewer jobs and decreased tax revenue.
Smith emphasizes the significance of uranium mining, citing a 2009 study that projected a $29 billion benefit to local economies over 42 years. He highlights the risks of relying on foreign uranium sources, given Arizona’s dependency on nuclear power for electricity generation.
Judge McNamee dismissed these concerns as speculative, saying the potential geopolitical shifts impacting domestic uranium prices were insufficient to establish a legal injury. Smith, however, insists that the consistently high uranium prices over the past 20 years support ongoing interest in mining.
Smith further asserts that local governments face additional challenges, such as reduced economic development in Fredonia and potential federal restrictions on Colorado City’s water supply, sourced from beneath the monument.
The White House’s announcement of the monument’s designation noted that its name translates in Havasupai to “where indigenous peoples roam” and in Hopi to “our ancestral footprints.”
—
Read More Arizona News
