Home » City Council, Community » Is there a National Monument designation downside? Part II

Is there a National Monument designation downside? Part II

SedonaEye.com financial columnist J. Rick Normand

SedonaEye.com financial columnist J. Rick Normand addresses the National Monument designation pros and cons in the second of his two part series analysis

Sedona AZ (August 15, 2015)This is the second of my two part series “Is there a National Monument designation downside?”

You won’t find the answers at the Keep Sedona Beautiful website!

We left off in Part I with an investigation into the quality, reliability, and integrity of the stewardship of national resource assets of the various interlocking federal agencies charged with the responsibility for management of our national scenic treasures, monuments, valuable lands and underground resources not to mention the semi-autonomous governments of our Native American nations. Progressive liberals and advocates for ever-increasing expansion of federal powers, concurrent with the simultaneous diminution of state’s Constitutional Tenth Amendment rights, always take the polemical posture that all these federal agencies work independently rather than in concert.

They don’t and they never have.

epa environmental protection agency logoThe National Park Service, the U.S. Forest Service, the BLM, the EPA, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, etc., all share common databases, email access, management memos, have similar operations policy manuals, cross-hire personnel from one another, cross-hire the same outside contractors and data service providers, avail themselves of the same federal police adjuncts such as the FBI, U.S. Marshall’s Service, Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco & Firearms, the Drug Enforcement Agency, as well as all the sub-agencies of the Department of Homeland Security, and this cross-agency interoperability goes on ad infinitum.

Animas River just_north_of_downtown_Durango

Animas River just north of downtown Durango, CO photo by Ahodges7. In August 2015, the La Plata County Sheriff’s Office was forced to close the river to the public after a crew working for the EPA released approximately 3 million gallons of mine waste into Cement Creek, a tributary of the Animas. Per EPA workers, a plug was accidentally removed while investigating a Gold King Mine leak. The mine was last active in the 1920s, but for years toxic water has leaked at a rate of 50 to 250 gallons a minute. The spill contained the toxic metals arsenic, cadmium and lead, as well as, aluminum and copper and other heavy metals.

So, it is a valid assumption to say that the incompetence, oversights, and misdeeds of one federal oversight agency will likely be found in its sister interoperable federal agencies. What you find to exist, operationally and policy-wise, in the Bureau of Land Management, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the U.S Forest Service, even the Department of Homeland Security and the federal police forces, you will also find in the National Park Service which will administer designated federal National Monuments such as Keep Sedona Beautiful is proposing for the 160,000 acres of scenic Red Rock Country surrounding Sedona and the Village of Oak Creek.

In view of what this writer has just said above in Part II, let’s consider the following article in the Washington Times dated August 12, 2015, concerning the EPA-caused toxic spill in the Durango area of the Animas River that is now flowing downstream to Arizona, entitled “Indians say EPA trying to swindle them in mine spill.” From this article comes this…”Rep. Rob Bishop, Chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, said through a spokeswoman, that he’s heard the complaints from the Navajo Nation and will be investigating the entire disaster.”

“Chairman Bishop is outraged at the reports that the EPA is asking tribal members to sacrifice their rights after EPA’s ineptitude has potentially threatened their health and livelihoods,” spokeswoman Julia Bell Slingsby said. “People are suffering because of EPA negligence and yet the federal government’s response is not to help, but to engage in grasping for legal cover before the full extent of damage is known to Navajo farmers.”

colorado animas

Colorado’s Animas River after August 2015 EPA mine waste spill of millions of gallons of toxic chemicals and metals. The river was closed indefinitely as public anger rises. The spill changed the color of the river to orange, and the spill was described as “devastating” by Kim Stevens, the director of Environment Colorado, who said that businesses relying on the river for profit might have to close down. The river’s fish population might also be at risk due to the toxic waste that now runs through the river.

In an Associated Press article dated August 13, 2015 entitled “It will be years until we know how much damage the toxic Colorado mine spill cost” by Matthew Brown and P. Solomon Banda, it opens with “The spill of toxic wastewater…caused untold millions in economic disruptions and damages in three states — to rafting companies, Native American farmers unable to irrigate, municipal water systems and possibly water well owners.”

On Sunday night, August 9th, residents packed a school auditorium in Durango for a meeting with the agency’s regional director, Shaun McGrath.

Shouts rang out. A few people cried. One resident questioned whether the agency had refashioned itself into the “Environmental Pollution Agency.” Others demanded to know what would happen to wildlife, livestock, water wells, sediment and river-based jobs…

The river is closed indefinitely…[end of article]

So, to close in my investigative reporting on the issue of federal stewardship of a National Monument designation for our Red Rock Country and portions of the Verde Valley, here is one final matter to consider:

In an article just published on August 10, 2015 in the New York Times entitled “Anger Rises as E.P.A. Increases Estimate of Toxic Water Spill at Colorado Mine” by Julie Turkewitz, noting the highlighted words in particular, she wrote:

The Animas region is distinct in that it has an organization called the Animas River Stakeholders Group, a loose coalition of mining companies; environmental groups; property owners; and local, state and federal government entities that have worked together since 1994 to clean up some of these sites…The Environmental Protection Agency was moving ahead with that project — without its partners — when the spill occurred. In other words, the Feds don’t partner with anybody when the chips are down!

Also, as I close the federal stewardship issue, I feel it ethical to method that there is another entirely different viewpoint as to the real motivations of supporters of any National Monument designation, as follows:

Rosa KoireThe most vocal national opposition group to this federal National Monument Designation by Presidential Executive Order is called “DEMOCRATS Against UN Agenda 21,” led by liberal Democrat Rosa Koire @ www.democratsagainstunagenda21.com.

Read her group’s website if you want to understand a very different point of view as to who and what is behind this movement to create National Monuments under absolute unchallengeable rule of the National Park Service, or the BLM, that may soon engulf Sedona and the VOC.

Is there anything left to say about the competency, integrity, quality and effectiveness of federal land management of this nation’s most cherished antiquities? I think not! To proceed any further with an indictment of federal stewardship and conservation of National Monuments, National Parks, and other lands and natural resources is probably tantamount to beating a dead horse at this point.

So, let’s move on to the hallowed issue of economic benefits claimed to be derived from the 260,000,000 acres of National Monument Designation lands throughout our nation.

Relative to this issue, this writer has read the Executive Summaries and Economic Impact Summaries of a dozen report findings from various local Chambers of Commerce always entitled “FINAL REPORT-Economic Impacts of National Monument Designation on [whatever date]” which, universally, include words similar to these about a National Monument designation “…provides benefit to the local economy and generates tax revenue for local governments. Local elected officials and stakeholders are recommending the [name of proposed National Monument area] for National Monument designation, which the Chamber of Commerce believes could increase economic benefits to the region after designation.”

Is this claim any more credible than the claims of excellence in federal Monument, Park and natural resource management offered by the socialist advocates of increased federal mandates and power?

Amy Roberts, Vice President for Government Affairs of the Outdoor Industry Foundation, an ally of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, says that with a National Monument designation, “You are leaving the pristine area intact, you’re not taking out the minerals that are there…what you’re guaranteeing is year-upon-year of recreational activity there.” And she’s right! But, she’s talking about paying tourists, not locals who are used to enjoying the wonders of our Red Rock country without paying exorbitant permit fees for it, and without having our peace and quiet choked to death by hordes of tourist traffic which is what induced most of us to move here in the first place!

The problem with this economic driver argument is…it may be valid relative to most areas targeted for National Monument designation, but such an otherwise valid argument does not apply to our Red Rock Country. To claim that this illusory economic driver is valid is an intentional slight-of-hand shell game.

Hummingbird 2That sentiment is shared by Joe Marlow, a land economist with Arizona’s Sonoran Institute in the March 17, 2010 Sonoran Institute article by Kurt Repanshek, Is There Economic Value to That National Monument in Your Backyard?, “People move out here to be in the West because of that environment, and if that environment gets significantly degraded, then that takes away, essentially, our landscapes, our clean air, clean water, beautiful views, wonderful places to recreate outdoors, places to hunt, to fish, to do all of the active outdoor recreation,” said Marlow. “Those are all there because of our landscapes. If we degrade those then we sort of damage a significant economic asset for economic development.”

Sedona and the VOC can’t endure any more traffic congestion occasioned by greater hordes of tourists since we only have two paved passages into the area, State Routes 89A and 179. To make matters worse, entrance to Sedona from the north on 89A is further congested with traffic from Slide Rock State Park by people who are just forced to pass through Sedona and aren’t Sedona-bound tourists, while people coming from I-17 northbound are still channeled into a tortuous “one lane each way” funnel that barely moves on a weekend day during the tourist season.

Meanwhile, Sedona Mayor Moriarty opines that at least we have a beautiful view while we sit in traffic for hours while more and more tourists pour into Sedona. What quality of life standard will this new found economic driver afford to us by rewarding us with the onslaught of a virtual uncontrolled invasion force?

In a Letter to the Editor at Sedona.biz entitled “National Monument Could Be Good For Our Region” by Bob Rothrock on July 27, 2015, an astute commenter with the handle of J.J. says on August 3, 2015:

The monument designation will make for more rules, more fees, more red tape. Can anyone answer these questions?

1. If an earthquake takes down utility poles (& we have thousands of them going across this area) or if a water source is interrupted, will we be able to have them repaired? Or will we have to fight for years, similar to the Tombstone water situation – because they wouldn’t allow heavy equipment in the area where the repair was needed.
2. I understand that there will not be any additional roads with this status. Does that also mean that current roads won’t be repaved anymore, either? this mean that I can’t even take a photo in this area without getting an expensive permit? That cuts down the competition really fast.
3. [not relevant]
4. Since they want to get rid of the parking areas at the trails and just use shuttles, that means that the locals can’t visit those areas after scheduled hours, either? Or are we going to have 24 hour shuttles to get around? Who is going to pay for all these shuttles when we couldn’t even afford to keep the trolley going?
5. What reimbursement do we get for our property if the utilities go away for any reason and they refuse to allow repair? Will eminent domain give us Sedona values – or will they use “national average” values, which probably won’t pay off most of the mortgages in the area?
6. They say that water rights will stay the same. Well, yes and no. Maybe senior and junior rights will prevail. However, having the feds in charge would put another layer into the mix. They would have senior rights, current senior rights would be junior to them, and current junior rights would be beneath that….???? I can’t afford to wash clothes in Evian or Perrier.
7. They said that federal rights would be for surface water. So, does that mean I can’t collect water on my property? Does anyone know if all of the affected cities get their water totally from underground?
8. They say this will keep the feds from mining here. No, it won’t. Congress can overturn the designation, if their pockets are sufficiently lined.

Sedona Arizona

Sedona Arizona

In light of all the aforesaid, here’s an intriguing question to give some serious consideration to…if the proposed National Monument designation would become the region’s major economic driver by automatically inducing tens of thousands of new tourists to come here, then for what reason would the City need to continue to pay Jennifer Wesselhoff and the C of C for Destination Traveler Marketing services?

If the proposed Sedona-Verde Valley Red Rock National Monument designation is signed by President Obama, then all Destination Traveler Marketing contract arrangements with the Sedona Chamber of Commerce should be terminated immediately thereafter…which would save the City about $900,000 per year. Let’s not forget this for a “Monumental” moment!

Read www.SedonaEye.com for daily news and interactive views!

Read www.SedonaEye.com for daily news and interactive views!


  1. J. J. says:

    Wow. Hey thanks for the print! I hope MANY wake up to what’s going on.

    Again, pointing to the Animas River DISASTER (called “event” by the Main Stream Media), a whistle-blower has step forth and predicted the disaster 2 weeks before it happened: http://www.silvertonstandard.com/news.php?id=847

    It was a false-flag operation to get Superfund dollars, according to the article.

    I honestly do not believe we need MORE government, more regulations when the Forest Service, EPA, and others can not behave themselves. The government can’t be trusted. Whatever they say, usually the opposite is true.

    Hope and Change!


  2. “. . . . , then for what reason would the City need to continue to pay Jennifer Wesselhoff and the C of C for Destination Traveler Marketing services?”

    Very funny. Same as now, they don’t have a reason other than to snatch grab whatever they can without accountability. And why wouldn’t a “National Monument” even strengthen the position of our “regional” chamber of commerce since factually the area expands beyond Sedona City Limits and they could then market the “National Monument” destination concept. This is just another excuse for the fat-cats with the chamber of commerce to control each and every council meeting and each and every issue that comes before them. This area cannot handle more tourists!

    If, for no other reason alone, that the “regional” chamber endorses and supports KSB on this issue, should be an eye-opener. That would not be the case if it didn’t mean enhanced financing for the chamber of commerce. (also supported by reference in article, “which the Chamber of Commerce believes could increase economic benefits to the region after designation.”)

    Bad deal. I’m convinced. Thank you very much J. Rick Normand.

  3. Boz says:

    something to think about

  4. Stop with the personal name calling. Stick with the facts. There’re plenty in the articles!!!!!!!!!

  5. @Donna, Sedona – I’m finding no name calling in the three comments before yours. What am I missing?

  6. Rockin Roger says:

    To all of the posters on this site, this topic is very important and to wander off just to drag in personal issues or digs about the Chamber or Lodging or your auntie Mary is non productive. For once I agree with Donna and Normand lets work together please.

  7. Kim Chott says:

    I received this in my email and found it to be very informative and knowledgeable regarding the National Monument. Unfortunately I have no idea who wrote it, but they did an excellent job and well worth reading.

    Keep Sedona Beautiful is attempting to ram a proclamation through President Obama under the Antiquities Act, declaring Sedona, VOC and Oak Creek Canyon as a national monument, land locking us and turning us all into inholders in a national monument. Portions of Clarkdale and Camp Verde are also included; most citizens are still unaware of this action being taken by KSB.

    The monument would have ownership of the entire watershed and surface waters of the Verde Valley and senior rather than junior water rights, that means your formerly senior water rights are now junior water rights.

    KSB was contacted by the Sedona Mayor and asked why KSB never contacted APS? Their response was, “we are too busy.”

    New utilities are not allowed on national monument land, existing right of ways are grand fathered in but one needs to get new permits every so many years. Camping, photography $50.00 fee per day if you ever sell your photos, biking, target practice, back country travel are always restricted in a national monument. KSB plans to close the Shaman’s Cave off and have it accessible by a shuttle, as well as close more dirt roads.

    I contacted a national monument in Colorado and was told, “no dogs allowed,” they have 400,000 acres of land and no dogs. I asked why? Response: “Dogs may chase lizards or other wildlife!” I guess coyotes don’t chase wildlife? As if dogs are a big menace to 400,000 acres of land while on a leash with their owners. Sedona has black jaguar, mtn. lions, bobcat, lynx, coyotes, bear, deer, antelope, lizards, rabbits, squirrels, raccoon, skunk, otters, ferret, fox, javelina, Peregrine falcon, etc. plenty of excuses could be found at any point to restrict dogs from the forest or us for that matter.

    KSB refuses to not land lock our town, they will not move their proposed boundaries away from our homes and city to a reasonable distance, preferring to make every inch off land here part of the monument. The last words I received from employees at the national monument in Colorado were, “you do not want a national monument in your town and good luck.”

    KSB is acting as the elected officials for five towns with very little public input or care what the public wants. Originally they were going to submit their proposal to Obama next year, now they have sped their timeline up to October. So far no one has seen what they are drafting, they have months head start on us gathering signatures for their plan. We were invited to attend KSB planning sessions so the public can have input but after one visit the last meeting they had scheduled was canceled. The Yavapai County Commissioners and local Board of Realtors are against this plan.

    I was at the public meeting KSB held at the library and listened to Tom O’Halleran’s well rehearsed, canned responses, “that nothing would change here,” I thought “this guy is running for a public office.” Two weeks later he announced his candidacy for Congressman of our district.


    Every vote counts, please sign today!

    Vote NO! http://www.arizonaliberty.us/Vote_NO_SVVRRNM_U.html

    KSB claims the USFS cannot do their job sufficiently (protect the land) without being a national monument. They also claim our trails need more maintenance, despite the fact that we have an amazing and well maintained trail system; note: a national monument will not provide more federal money to our area.

    The Red Rock Ranger District has steadily been addressing recreation and land protection despite the federal budget cutbacks in recent years.

    Current management plan in place:


    Here are some examples:

    • By forest order, camping and campfires restricted around Sedona and VOC (closed road accessible areas on Schnebly Hill, near the communities and along Boynton Pass Road)
    • Implemented a several year process to manage outfitter-guide permits. The Forest Service now has authority to limit commercial use. Now no new ones will be allowed unless they meet a specific need designated by the Forest Service. For example, mountain bike guide permits were issued based on a prospectus process.
    • Closed 60 miles of roads to motorized use and prohibited off-road vehicle travel under the travel management regulations.
    • Greatly reduced forest access using engineering such as boulders to block roadside parking and off road access, curbs along Highway 179 that have blocked all the old points where people could pull off and park to access the forest.
    • Re-engineered the trail system and created a larger and more hardened trail system working with volunteer groups. Worked to clean up and stop unauthorized trail building.
    • Created several paved parking areas for forest access. When these are full, as they often are, that limits visitor use in the popular areas.
    • Created Red Rock Pass program to obtain funds for managing high use impacts, for education, signs and trailhead toilets, Red Rock Recreation Guide and patrolling.
    • No glass in Oak Creek Canyon forest order to protect the stream corridor and wildlife
    • Developed trailhead vistas, parking and signage and information
    • Non-commercial permits are issued for the 4WD Casner Mountain corridor.
    • Limited helicopter activities associated with filming around most of Sedona

    Partnerships with Private and Public Groups
    “We continue to work to balance scenery values with needed recreation and community needs and facilities. We have worked with the Chamber of Commerce and Arizona State Parks (and others) through partnerships and grants to improve education and interpretation through new kiosks, interactive displays at the visitor information office, having the ranger station constructed on 179 to reach visitors as they enter the community.”
    (Judy Adams, Lands Team Leader Coconino National Forest)

    The Red Rock Ranger district has extensive partnerships with the Oak Creek Watershed group who gets grants for watershed protection and public information; with Friends of the Forest who help build and maintain trails; with the Verde Valley Archaeology Society who is obtaining grants for archaeological site protections; Keep Sedona Beautiful who provides volunteers, expertise and funding such as in support for obtaining high value private properties; and many, many more groups.

    In the future, if needed, the national forest can implement a reservation system for high use trails, parking or camping areas such as they are doing at Fossil Creek Wild and Scenic management area. This action would require public meeting and comment process.

  8. Norma says:

    Well you can see that there are facts not being disclosed by KSB. It is known as the ” Agenda Sedona” = Shut up and do what the powers say.

    This time the entire region will pay not just the in-city folks. There are other options to protect the land.

    When will enough be enough?

    Be heard! Slow it down. Stop it as you do not know all the facts. Sounds pretty but it is ugly on the inside.

    Sign the petition to stop this insane idea before it is to late.

    Thank you J. Rick for standing up and getting the public some information.


  9. Thank you, Kim Chott, for posting that information as I, too, was among the recipients.

    It’s true – @Rockin Roger – this issue is far too important to not take seriously. In the meantime, it would be reckless to ignore the players that might benefit and it will be prudent to scrutinize reasons and motives of those either for or against the NM designation.

    Without a doubt true believers are sincere in their efforts but sometimes because of that devout dedication they become blindsided and will not acknowledge potential unintended consequences.

    Even wording on what KSB submits is subject to being changed and forever, as is evidenced in comments on both of these articles, interpretations can be skewed.

    There’s much at stake here and remaining grounded with clear, dispassionate thinking becomes paramount. (IMO)

  10. @ Norma

    Thank you Norma for your support relative to this vital issue. Spread the word.


  11. Same old stuff. Same as the chamber going to city council for the money to promote themselves and the businesses not having a say or information. Then they use the taxes to promote their private club. You all sat back and watch the businesses get abused and said nothing. KBS is doing the exact thing to you. They claim to be the expert and don’t want you to know! You let it happen.
    City council is making a decision you your opinion doesn’t count.

  12. Sean says:

    …please read the following link from the The Los Angeles County Department of Public Works and Fire Department, as well, as follows:



    Worth the read, folks.

  13. Jim Farley says:

    I am very concerned that the entirety of Sedona will become “inholdings”. What KSB and others don’t want you to know is that there is already a legal framework in place to allow the Federal Government to manage and regulate the use of PRIVATE AND STATE LANDS that are surrounded by federal land to which some kind of protected status is conferred (such as but not limited to monuments and parks)

    Read it and weep!


  14. When in doubt ~ DON’T!

  15. Susan Amon says:

    Sean, Thank you for that link about Supervisor Antonovich’s opposition to the NM designation of the San Gabriel Mountains. I haven’t heard of any county supervisor weighing in on our NM issues! This should be a warning to all of us that the rush to get this signed and to the president is meant to suppress discussion of opposing views!

    “LOS ANGELES COUNTY —The Los Angeles County Departments of Public Works and Fire reported concerns to the Board of Supervisors with the proposed National Monument Designation for the San Gabriel Mountains. This report was requested by Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich on September 2, 2014 after numerous community stakeholders and business leaders expressed growing concern for the proposed change in designation of the San Gabriel Mountains.

    “This list of issues is alarming. We have been told repeatedly that this designation will have no impacts on County operations, yet our County departments immediately identified multiple areas of concern,” said Supervisor Antonovich. “We now have more questions than answers, and unfortunately, we will be unable to definitely determine the potential impacts of a designation prior to the President’s ill-advised Executive Order.”

    In their report, the Department of Public Works and Fire Department identified areas of concern, including:
    • Fire suppression
    • Water resources
    • Flood control facilities
    • Roads

    The Monument Plan is in response to perceived gridlock in Congress regarding the National Recreation Area Bill. However, the National Recreation Area Bill had significant public input and transparency.

    “Congresswoman Chu and the President are bypassing stakeholders by rushing this Monument Designation,” said Supervisor Antonovich. “This should be tabled until the Monument Designations Management Plan has been finalized and vetted with the community and impacted agencies.”

  16. I’ll share with you that the 6000 plus residents of the Village of Oak Creek, Big Park have not directly asked for this so we may demand proof of this so called support.
    Big Park Council voted to endorse but as anyone in the know knows, that group of 10 homeowners associations and a business association that won a Governors award was hijacked in 2007.
    Big Park Council doubled in size with business associations that do not exist, groups of 3 ppl that have votes equal to 4000 residents of VOCA and BPRCC refuses to release each groups true numbers. One business association is a parking lot.
    The same people sit on all or most of the committees here and follow the lead of our Yavapai County.
    Some of these same people are involved with KSB.
    Quantify the data, prove the village endorses this or you may be tied up for a very long time defending false numbers to the government.
    That will keep you busy with legal dribble.
    Game time is over.

  17. @Jim Farley,

    While I haven’t had the good fortune to meet you and shake your hand yet, I want to thank you for this astounding bit of research on your part. As I tried to pound in relative to my responses in Part I to the criticisms of the KSB proponents, my readers who oppose the Red Rock National Monument designation tend to expound points of authority as you have done, factual evidence, and recitations of expert testimony while the KSB supporters recite just the politicized merchandising efforts of KSB as authoritative while whining and throwing about baseless threats in their always emotional tirades.

    Once Sedona and the VOC become an “inholding” of the federal jurisdiction over the 160,000 acre proposed National Monument, our City and the Village can forget about self-governance. Our economy (through the use of permit charges and land use regulations within the Monument that will have economic tentacles that stretch far outside its jurisdiction into the economic fabric of our City and Village)
    will be controlled from Washington not to mention our quality of life issues and our liberties.

    Please, all of you readers, do go to Jim Farley’s mentioned link and read it carefully…



  18. In a phone call to Nicole Branton, local District Forest Ranger, she responded to my question about whether or not a USFS representative could address a public meeting and field questions about the proposed National Monument.

    She explained that at this time there would be nothing for them to offer because they do not not know what the.proposal from KSB will be or, obviously, what the final “Proclamation” will contain. In other words, only after the fact and the deed is done will they or anyone else be aware of the terms, conditions, jurisdiction, or other details the official “Proclamation” will provide; and that will come from Washington, DC, under the authorization of the President of the United States.

    USFS personnel cannot respond to questions such as will Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, or USFS have jurisdiction. Apparently definite specifics do not exist so management of each National Monument is based on what is decided at the time of the official “Proclamation.” Therefore without any advance knowledge of how the area will be managed they are unable to respond to questions because, again, that won’t be decided until the final “Proclamation” is signed, sealed, and delivered.

    So the bottom line is, we are dealing with an unknown. This for sure looks like a situation of “the devil is in the details.” Period, end of report.

  19. Thank you Rick for detailed research and background. And the rest of the comments from all of you. The issue is serious, and the more noise the better.

    The GRAND CANYON Watershed National Monument proposal, consisting of 1.7 MILLION acres is attracting a lot of attention at the state and federal level. This is also bringing attention to our proposed MONUMENT. Nowhere is a group of active cities surrounded and locked in by a National Monument.

    The law that KSB is pushing is the Antiquities Act of 1906. Very short, and easy to understand. Posted on our website listed above. Please read it, takes five minutes.

    All the points mentioned are valid. What quality of life do you want? What restrictions are you willing to live with, how much of your freedom to enjoy our forest and surroundings are you willing to give up?

    Would you like to hear from our elected officials?

    On Thursday, September 3, at 6:30 PM, at the Canyon Trails Cowboy Church, Sedona, Concerned Citizens for America will welcome AZ House Speaker David Gowan on the “Sedona Verde Valley Red Rock National Monument” designation efforts by the Obama administration. We will also discuss the “Grand Canyon Watershed Monument” efforts by local Progressives and the POTUS.

    Is this federal assimilation of land right in our own backyards beneficial for us Sedonans? We have also invited Rep. Bob Thorpe and Senator Sylvia Allen to weigh in on the issue. THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT ISSUE FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND; join us and bring your friends.

    We will also welcome CD1 Congressional candidate Gary Kiehne on his platform for lowering taxes, protecting land rights, stopping illegal immigration, helping ranchers, miners, farmers and small business and replacing ObamaCare. Gary will also discuss the “national monument” issue.

    Feel free to forward this email to club members, place on your websites, post to Facebook and you may print the attached invite for your neighbors and friends.

    This is a free event, all voters are welcome and we will serve desserts.

    Also please review these articles that were produced on the management of our forests.



    The reasons to keep the federal government as far away as possible continue to raise the alarm bells. We can do the job of protecting our environment without giving up our freedoms and subjecting us to burdensome federal control.

    Thanks again Rick for bringing this up. Hope to see all of you at the Cowboy Church.

  20. Question? Why is KSB even being allowed to have their secret meetings and make these decisions without being stopped? They have NO right to be making socialistic decisions for Sedona and the Verde Valley. I say get them to stop now!!!

  21. steve Segner says:

    Carol Gandolfo says:
    “I say get them to stop now!!!” WOW and just who are you to say what people or groups can and can not do.

    So a any local group that has an idea or program is not allowed to bring it forward and ask people to agree and help with it .
    What about the P.T.A. Friends of the forest
    Please, remember this is a free country.
    “ Socialistic” , really so lets get rid of

    1, Social Security
    2. Medicare and Medicaid
    3. The Post Office
    4. Public Schools and Colleges and Universities
    5. Libraries
    6. Water Treatment Systems
    7. Recreational Centers, including Gyms, Parks, Beaches
    8. National Parks
    9. Public Transit Systems, Trains, Subways, Buses
    10.Police, Firefighters, Sanitation Services, Public Hospitals
    11.Military Services and Protection
    12.Labor Protections
    13.Food and Drug Regulations
    14.Environmental Protections
    15.Financial Institutions Regulations
    16.Transportation Safety Regulations
    17.Housing Regulations
    18.Energy Regulations
    19.Military Veterans Protections
    20.Homeland Security Protections


  22. S.Amon says:

    Steve Segner,

    “So a any local group that has an idea or program is not allowed to bring it forward and ask people to agree and help with it ”

    This is NOT an idea. KSB and others are going to present this to the President WITHOUT having to consider much local input and an action not easily reversed if we don’t like the outcome. This will change many people’s lives to a degree we don’t know. This is not a PTA decision will only effect a few people and decisions that could at some time be reversed. Every single numbered item you list had a public and legislative process. The NM does not.

  23. sheri graham says:

    @Carol Gandolfo- Great question and statement of ” Why is KSB even being allowed to have their secret meetings and make these decisions without being stopped? They have NO right to be making socialistic decisions for Sedona and the Verde Valley. I say get them to stop now!!!”

    Could I add a bit more to the conversation? Looks to me like KSB is “playing” the City Council and their members who sit on Council to just do their bidding.

    This issue of a National Monument is being run hard and fast and driven by KSB and they have taken their time to put it all together but don’t want to allow the rest of us to take the time to get “the Other Side of the Story”. Makes me wonder what they are afraid of? Well – easy to figure out that they don’t want anyone outside their group to think it through and learn that there are two sides to every story. KSB is in the process of writing a fable they want everyone to believe. Remember that a Fable is fiction and not fact… it is a means of promotion of un-founded feel goods.

    @S.Amon says it so very correctly as she writes back to S Segner ” Every single numbered item you list had a public and legislative process. The NM does not.”

    So is KSB and s segner now united in the bully tactic routine?

    s segner says: “So a any local group that has an idea or program is not allowed to bring it forward and ask people to agree and help with it .”

    My question to s segner is how do you differentiate between a “local group” with an idea asking “people” to agree and help with it AND reality is that this is a Council issue now based upon your actions with all your friends on Council. You are not even giving creditability to the fact that the “public” has been left out of the KSB process. So, can you explain?

    Opps, am sure you will come back with the # of signatures on the KSB petition. And you think that makes your point?

    There is much more to discuss on the issue and now it comes down to hard core issues on Both sides. Will you allow that or will you continue to attempt to make it only about your typical bully stance and refuse to listen to others?

    So you know s segner – I’m also so over the entitlement aspect the left wing dems keep costing us. Thanks for the list and that should remind all of us as to why our national budget is broke. some good things yet much is so bad and just cost us more and more money.

    This IS a free country and that should mean we can get rid of all the garbage we – the tax payers- are having to pay for….socialistic? Yep and you are right in the middle of it.

    Happy days S.

  24. S.Amon says:

    Talk directly to State legislators about the Sedona National Monument!
    Please share with anyone!

    Concerned Citizens for America presents:

    THURSDAY, September 3, Canyon Trails Cowboy Church, 3132 White Bear Road, Sedona, 86336, 6:30 PM to 8:30 PM (doors open at 6 PM)

    “Sedona Verde Valley Red Rock National Monument Debate”






  25. Question says:

    What is difference between KSB and the lodging-Chamber proposal for the increase of bed tax?
    They both went or are going to City Council with a permanent changing life policy without the people having any knowledge or say so. The in-city businesses and residents had no vote on whether to gift fund the regional chamber millions to market themselves.

    The only ones benefiting are those putting in the proposals without public knowledge or say so.
    Civil rights? Shouldn’t the city reach out and ask you first? You all sat by and watch CC strip the businesses of their civil – human rights when they repugnantly gave the entire voice to the regional chamber along with millions of taxpayers’ dollars. 13 million and growing of in-city funding to a regional special interest group.
    Think about it.

  26. Dick says:

    National Monument needs aren’t justified. How’s that for plain & simple.

  27. Norm says:

    Well, since no one knows for sure what the end result will be, is this any more than a “pig in a poke?” What the?? Why would KSB even suggest promoting such nonsense, and worse yet, why does the city council waste time considering it? Bad, bad deal!

  28. To All Readers:

    From a thorough reading of the Natural Resources Journal (Vol. 39), report entitled “Not So Helpless: Application of the U.S. Constitution Property Clause to Protect Federal Parklands from External Threats by HARRY R. BADER, I feel it necessary to address the following as an absolutely critical matter of concern relative to the proposed Sedona Verde Valley Red Rock National Monument designation:

    For the record, I am not a licensed attorney. Anything I’ve written in this comment should be reviewed by legal counsel for Keep Sedona Beautiful and the district’s Congressional delegation who intend to request of President Obama that he sign an Executive Order creating the SVVRRNM designation.

    Many conservationists worry that National Parks and National Monuments may be threatened by development activities occurring outside established park or monument boundaries, thereby threatening preservation objectives.

    Currently, the extra-territorial reach of the federal Constitution’s Property Clause enables park and monument managers to address perceived external threats to park and monument integrity. The Property Clause is available, and has been successfully relied upon, to control activities adjacent to, or within the perimeter area of, a federal conservation unit which significantly interferes with the primary purposes for which the federal land is designated.

    The U.S. Supreme Court and Appellate Courts have consistently ruled that under the Property Clause of the U.S. Constitution, U.S. CONST., Art. IV, § 3, d. 2., and the the National Park Service Organic Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1 (1994), that the power of Congress over the public lands is without limitation.

    However, these cases only address threats to federal land management objectives resulting from state and private conduct occurring upon the federal lands. The issue soon arose, however, as to whether federal agencies may use the Property Clause, and their enabling statutes, to protect public lands from extra-territorial threats. A federal court first addressed this issue in U.S. v. Brown, 552 F.2d 817,817 (8th Cir. 1977) just one year after Kleppe v. New Mexico ruling, 426 U.S. 529 (1976), and Kleppe, 426 U.S. at 540.

    In the Brown case the Court ruled that the Property Clause is broad enough to reach beyond territorial limits.’ Applying this rule to the facts presented in the case, the court stated that congressional power over federal lands includes the authority to regulate activities on Non-Federal public land/waters in order to protect wildlife and visitors on the federal park land. The Court, relied solely on the Property Clause, requiring no additional statutory authorization from Congress to permit the Park Service to regulate conduct on non-federal property.

    The next important case addressing extra-territorial application of the Property Clause was Minnesota v. Block wherein the Court upheld the a state statute finding that “Congress’ power must extend to regulation of conduct on or off the public land that would threaten the designated purpose of the federal lands,” 660 F.2d 1240,1249 (1981). Almost any state activity, even the most traditional of police powers endeavors, fall before the Property Clause if the activity poses a significant impediment to federal land management objectives. Federal ability to reach beyond the confines of public land and regulate activity on adjacent state and private lands has startled many states, particularly in the West, where federal lands are extensive. When deciding whether it is appropriate for federal agencies to regulate private and state property to protect federal lands from external threats, the federal courts have consistently ruled that several rules must be developed to determine the availability of the Property Clause for extra-territorial application. The rules that may be gleaned from case law can be generalized as relating to three primary subject areas: (1) the location of lands to be regulated in proximity to federal land, (2) the purpose which the regulation is to serve, and (3) the nature of the federal interest to be protected.

    In order for the Property Clause to bestow its enormous extra-territorial power, each rule must be satisfied.

    Private and state lands subject to regulations under statutes pursuant to the extra-territorial application of the Property Clause must be within the perimeter area of a designated conservation unit or ENTIRELY SURROUNDED by federal lands (as would be Sedona and the Village of Oak Creek) under various management agencies. This is known as the “inholders rule.” Under the “inholders rule” a property owner within federal unit perimeters falls subject to potential regulation automatically. The “inholding rule” gives reasonable notice to potentially regulated parties that the application of agency rules may be extended extra-territorially towards them but it does place an absolute limit on the extra-territorial extension of the Property Clause.

    Thus, this question, from an ethical if not legal perspective, should be addressed in the Keep Sedona Beautiful and the SVVRRNM websites, as follows:

    Is it possible, that it could be interpreted under the abovementioned “inholding rule” that the federal jurisdiction of the Sedona-Verde Valley Red Rock National Monument would extend into the Village of Oak Creek and the unincorporated environs of the Verde Valley and possibly into the incorporated municipalities of Sedona, Camp Verde, Cottonwood and Clarkdale that would be immediately adjacent to the proposed SVVRRNM designated boundaries? If the inholding rule can be applied to the extra-territorial areas just mentioned, the fact of local self-governance could be impaired and we could find the place we live and love under indirect federal authority. At the minimum, if the inholding rule does apply in our case if the subject National Monument designation is accomplished, this could give the Feds a choke-hold on our local economy.

    Has KSB and the political office seekers and seated political office holders, realtors, and Chamber of Commerce who are proponents of the National Monument designation obtained a legal opinion from an attorney thoroughly acquainted with the current case law regarding the inholding rule of the U.S. Constitution’s Property Clause as it would, or would not apply to the proposed SVVRRNM designation? I doubt it, and this is why I question all commenters who rabidly imply or state that Keep Sedona Beautiful is an authority rather than a purveyor of propaganda motivated by a political purpose.

  29. Mr. Normand, it’s good that you disclose at the very top of your posting that you have no legal training. You should also disclose that you pick and choose your facts to suit your spews.

    For the record, I am also against the proposal for reasons that I will not discuss on this posting.

    My issues with your “facts” are very simple; in your last paragraph you present a list of “proponents” to this applicaiton and most of those listed have never offered a position one way or the other. I have attended sedona council and KSB meetings as well and only heard one councilperson give her support THAT’S IT!! The other 6 have been mute on their position. I remember listening to the president of the realtors association eloquently say that he was against the proposal and offered many reasons why he felt that way. I have never seen Jennifer W say one word one way or the other. So to say that they are proponents is an out and out lie! If simple examples of yours are untrue what other mis-facts have you written about?

  30. @ Check those facts,

    Sir or Ma’am, hiding in anonymity, maybe you should check your facts and then apologize to me…if you have the courage. First of all, I didn’t say “all realtors” much less the Sedona-Verde Valley Realtors Association, which I would have if I had meant all realtors.

    Nevertheless, Jan Bigelow of Russ Lyon Sotheby’s Int’l RE is on the KSB Board of Trustees and her firm is listed on the KSB website as a major business sponsor. So is Coldwell Banker who’s designated broker is Rick Wesselhoff, Jennifer’s husband.

    Moreover, of all the corporate and institutional supporters of the 2010 failed National Scenic Area designation, including the Sedona Chamber of Commerce, none have renounced their support for KSB’s NM designation effort. So for you, who won’t even disclose his/her name, to say “I have never seen Jennifer W say one word one way or the other” I will say…you have no credibility and therefore, you don’t even exist as an authority on any subject. Why don’t you do research to the extent that I do in order to back-up your large mouth?


  31. Jim Farley says:

    Mr. Normand,

    That wasn’t my research. A dear friend of mine (who’s been in contact with you) found that. I’m just saying that here so as not to take credit that’s not due.


  32. steve Segner says:

    J Rick Normand says:
    “none have renounced their support for KSB’s NM designation effort”
    Renounced, ? So in your thinking people or groups that make no statements
    are for a project unless they Renounce it.
    You said, Coldwell Banker who’s designated broker is Rick Wesselhoff, Jennifer’s husband. and you go after them for saying nothing,
    Very sad
    The bottom line is Rick is all “Cut and past” if the president want to do this he will
    that simple…..

  33. Mr Normand wow, rants like that are easy for a self absorbed type like yourself. While you may feel that I have no credibility and don’t exist as an authority means nothing to me. Because I challenge you to show me a time, place or video showing Jen W taking a stance about the Natl Monument.

    You also have yet to back up your statement about the council taking a position (except for one vocal women). Just because I choose to remain nameless doesn’t make my points any less real to everyone else on this site except you.

    You sir choose to pick your facts to suit your own ego. I stand by my points above.

  34. @Check those facts:

    Show me when and where I said the Council has taken a position on the NM issue? As for Jen W, if you know her so well, why don’t you ask her who sat in front of her, and talked to her, for three hours tonight at the Scorpion/Camp Verde football game? As to your statement “Because I challenge you…” I will remind you that as a nameless worm you’re in no position to make any challenge. If you are otherwise, then why don’t you challenge me to a public debate on the NM issue? Why you’re at it, why don’t you ask Jen W how she thinks you would fare against me? No, you won’t do that! Last, but not least, you haven’t chosen to contest any facts, points of authority or expert opinion that I’ve posted. The only thing you’re equipped to do is post personal attacks and you’re not very good at that. Why is that? Because you don’t have any supporting facts and even if you did you’re not smart enough to string them together into a valid syllogism. I would be willing to bet that in a public debate, you’ll probably cry before it’s over. So, do you want to accept my challenge crybaby?

  35. J Rick

    I’m not a segner fan but I must agree with him on his comment above.

    Once again you twist every word to make yourself feel good. Please reread my prior postings: 8/20 4:20 I said “For the record, I am also against the proposal”.

    So for you to ask for a challenge it would be waste of time, I AGREE WITH YOU. My point is that you are accusing people who have not taken a position one way or the other of disagreeing with you. You just love to think that it’s you against the world.

    Show me when and where I said the Council has taken a position on the NM issue?

    August 20, 2015 at 12:09 pm

    You say: “seated political office holders”. Again, only one councilwomen has taken a position. NO OTHER SEATED POLITICAL OFFICE HOLDER HAS (McCain on down) and If I’m wrong, please mention their name and when and where they made the statement instead of doing your normal grandstanding.

    “As for Jen W, if you know her so well, why don’t you ask her who sat in front of her, and talked to her, for three hours tonight at the Scorpion/Camp Verde football game”

    Sorry to burst your bubble, I’ve never met her nor care who she sat behind at a football game unless she stood up and shouted from her seat that she’s supporting the NM plan. Did she do that??????? Please let me know. If she’s taken a public stance for herself or the chamber in any public forum supporting the NM, please tell me where that was and when it happened. Unlike you I don’t think that I’m the smartest guy in the room. I’m just asking you to show your facts instead of rants.

    As to your statement “Because I challenge you…” I will remind you that as a nameless worm you’re in no position to make any challenge. If you are otherwise, then why don’t you challenge me to a public debate on the NM issue?

    Why do you always want to debate when I HAVE ALREADY SAID THAT I AGREE WITH YOU AND I’M AGAINST THE NM?

    “Last, but not least, you haven’t chosen to contest any facts, points of authority or expert opinion that I’ve posted”.

    You may have facts but you are far and away NOT A POINT OF ANY AUTHORITY OR EXPERT ON ANYTHING EXCEPT BEING A BULLY and proud of it I may add.

    “The only thing you’re equipped to do is post personal attacks”

    You have made a life out of personally attacking people every day that you live in this town. I haven’t attacked you, I’m questioning you on some of your “expert facts”. You just hate when ever someone questions you in even a small way.

    Because you don’t have any supporting facts and even if you did you’re not smart enough to string them together into a valid syllogism. syllogism WOW BIG WORDS!

    I’m not impressed by big words when they’re spoken by little people who try to impress others to overcome their personal manhood insecurities.

    I would be willing to bet that in a public debate, you’ll probably cry before it’s over. So, do you want to accept my challenge crybaby?

    Oh wait, wasn’t it you a few lines above accusing me of posting personal attacks? I know a few other small packaged individuals who know how to bellow from a pulpit to make themselves feel better. I have news for you, it doesn’t help the package grow it only makes them look smaller in a public setting in front of the hundreds that they have bullied.

  36. @check those facts,


  37. J. J. says:

    Check those Facts needs to Check Those Facts.

    See you at the meeting!

  38. sharlett says:

    @check those facts. I can help you clear up what Council has or has not done with a little information; on Aug 4th Councilwoman Angela L let the public know that she was carring brochures FOR the Natinal Monument. She continued to work for KSB at a Coffee Chat meeting where she handed out brochures and I believe was so bold as to ask people to sign the KSB NM Petition. Then she attends the KSB NM Thursday meetings at KSB building and continues to speak up for NM and etc. On top of that Councilwoman Jessica W has engaged on a Facebook page repudiating or disagreeing with anyone who asks questions that disagree with KSB and when challenged just says she is only trying to correct misinformation.

    What more do you need? At the very least these two elected officials have taken a stance.

    And, just to be very clear – Council did take a position when they applauded KSB and asked them to bring the issue back to them….trite maybe? Nope! a game where KSB says Council asked them to check it out and Council says KSB asked them to allow them to check it out. What? Who is on first and who – who is driving this issue?

    Forget personality issues and lets just get real on the issue. You can dislike the messenger but stick with the concept – Please!

    Next you may want to connect with Representative Bob Thorpe’s office in Phx (district 6) to get a copy of his well drafted letter dated July 21, 2015, listing a lengthy list of people involved in opposition to the grand canyon NM which, I believe, translates to our humble little town and the attempted take over by KSB for a NM. Names listed in the letter are: House Speaker Gowan, Rep Borellie, Rep Boyer, Rep Campbell, Rep Cobb, Rep Coleman, Rep Fann, Rep Finchem, and etc. Then Senator Allen and Barto and Begay – who all oppose a NM in Northern Az. He also includes, in his well researched letter, many references to other organization’s opposed to a NM concept. If you don’t believe me then check it out for yourself.

    A Sedona NM? vs a Grand Canyon NM and so many on the State level are opposed? 1 + 1 = 2.

    In any event – we do have council members playing behind the scenes and as they try to ignore their fiduciary responsibility to the electorate.

  39. To all readers at The Eye:

    When the President federalizes land by declaring it a national monument, he can both limit public access and change the water rights associated with the land. In short, the President can unilaterally expand the federal-reserved water rights associated with existing federal lands simply by cloaking it as a National Monument.

    Meanwhile, I’ve learned this over the weekend:

    WASHINGTON – U.S. Republican Sens. Jeff Flake and John McCain, Arizona, Orrin Hatch and Mike Lee, Utah, introduced a bill Thursday, S. 1416, aiming to prevent the President from changing the existing water-rights designation, of lands declared to be national monuments, to federal senior rights.


  40. Sharlett while I have hardly ever agreed with you in the past, after reading those facts, I can agree. BTW, I am opposed to the NM for all of the reasons J Rick spouted I just dislike when he spews generalities expecting us folks to take him at his word. YOU HAVE PROVIDED EXACTLY WHAT I HAD ASKED.

  41. Why Sedona? Why not make the Grand Canyon a National Monument?
    Sedona’s water rights are in the cross-hairs of the federal government. Senior water rights will become junior water rights under the NM designation. Anyone with a private well or creekside home or irrigation rights will lose those rights to the NM. The Salt River Project has claimed Oak Creek water and for the past 20 years area residents have been fighting to keep their water rights.
    Problem – Reaction – Solution = National Monument designation. The NM in Nevada signed by Obama is nothing more than a land and water grab. (See also the stand-off at the Bundy Ranch last year when snipers were placed in position, armed and ready to shoot upon the protesters!)

  42. Funny that something designed to protect an area would actually destroy it.

  43. Readers at The Eye:

    Please continue from this article to my next article at The Eye on the subject of the proposed SVVRRNM designation. It is entitled “Damn All of You Who Want All the Facts! (a parody). Thank you.

  44. Right now the federal government controls about 31 million acres of Arizona – 42 %. Only 16 % of Arizona is owned by private citizens who pay taxes on that land. The rest of the land doesn’t pay taxes which is why the school systems are lousy. Thank the feds for that!

    Signed a school administrator in AZ (don’t want to be more specific)

    No Grand Canyon monument, no Sedona Verde Valley monument. AZ Game and Fish is opposed. Go to Lake Powell boating, go fishing, like Verde kayaking and swimming? Say goodbye.

Leave a Reply

Copyright © 2008-2017 · Sedona Eye · All Rights Reserved · Posts · Comments · Facebook · Twitter ·