Historic Roadways Protection Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Kennedy, Mike [R-UT-3]
- Committees
- Natural Resources Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jan 14, 2025
Bottom line
The bill halts federal funding for specific BLM travel management plans in Utah, pending the resolution of numerous lawsuits concerning historic rights-of-way on public lands.
What it actually does
This bill prohibits the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), from spending federal funds to finalize or implement new travel management plans for ten specific areas in Utah, and from implementing four existing travel management plans in Utah. This prohibition remains in effect until all 22 listed R.S. 2477 court cases, involving Utah counties and the State against the United States, have been adjudicated.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the bill protects historic roadways and ensures that the federal government does not unilaterally restrict access to public lands while legal disputes over established rights-of-way (R.S. 2477 claims) are ongoing. They contend that pausing these plans respects state and local interests in land management and prevents premature federal action that could prejudice the outcomes of the R.S. 2477 cases.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that this bill interferes with the Bureau of Land Management's statutory authority and responsibility to manage public lands for multiple uses, including conservation and recreation, by preventing the implementation of plans designed to protect sensitive areas. They may contend that delaying these plans could lead to environmental degradation, unmanaged recreational impacts, and a lack of clarity regarding land access, regardless of the R.S. 2477 case outcomes.
The bill is short and clearly written, making it accessible for a quick and informed read.
Section 2(a)
Definitions
This section defines key terms used throughout the bill. It specifies the 'applicable period' during which the funding prohibition is active, which begins on enactment and ends when the Secretary of the Interior certifies that all 22 listed R.S. 2477 cases have been adjudicated. It also lists the ten 'covered travel management areas' and the 22 specific 'R.S. 2477 cases' that are central to the bill's purpose.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that clearly defining these terms ensures the precise application of the funding prohibition, linking it directly to the resolution of long-standing legal disputes over land access in Utah. This provides a clear framework for federal action, or inaction, during a critical legal period.
Critics contend
Opponents might contend that tying federal land management decisions to the adjudication of numerous, potentially lengthy, R.S. 2477 cases creates an indefinite and unpredictable timeline for necessary planning. This could lead to prolonged uncertainty and potentially hinder effective land management.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the desire for federal land management flexibility with the demand for resolution of state and local claims over historic access rights. It creates a tension between immediate land management needs and the outcome of complex legal processes.
Section 2(b)
Prohibition on Use of Funds for Travel Management Plans
This section enacts the core prohibition. During the 'applicable period' (until the R.S. 2477 cases are resolved), the Secretary of the Interior is forbidden from spending federal funds to finalize or implement new travel management plans for ten specific areas in Utah. Additionally, the Secretary is prohibited from implementing four *already existing* travel management plans within Utah. This effectively freezes certain BLM land management activities related to travel planning in these areas.