Home » From The Readers, Letters to the Editor » National Monument Designation is Political not Environmental

National Monument Designation is Political not Environmental

Sedona AZ (September 29, 2015) – The following is a letter to the SedonaEye.com editor:

Sedona AZ

Sedona AZ

By: David Reyburn
To: Sedona City Council
Date: September 28, 2015
Re: Comments for the PUBLIC RECORD, for inclusion in the Sedona Council Packet for October 13, 2015


1. David Reyburn (“I”, “Me”, “My”)
2. City of Sedona (“City”)
3. Sedona City Council (“Council”, “City Council”)
4. Member of Sedona City Council (“Member”, “Council Member”, “Councilor”)
5. Sedona City Mayor, Sandy Moriarty (“Mayor”)
6. Sedona City Manager, Justin Clifton (“Manager”, “City Manager”)
7. Sedona City Attorney, Robert Pickels (“Attorney”, “City Attorney”)
8. Sedona City Manager AND Sedona City Staff (“Staff”, “City Staff”)
9. Sedona City Council Packet (“Packet”, “Council Packet”)
10. Sedona City Council Action Minutes (“Minutes”)
11. Keep Sedona Beautiful (“KSB”)
——- a. A local, non-profit, 501(c)(3), “environmental” organization.
12. The Sedona Verde Valley Red Rock National Monument (“Monument”, “National Monument”)
13. The Antiquities Act of 1906 (“Act”, “The Act”)
14. The Keep Sedona Beautiful (KSB) National Monument Proposal (“Proposal”)
—– a. A list of 31 “recommendations” that KSB has written and intends to SUBMIT to the Administration, sometime in November 2015, ADVOCATING for the designation of 160,000 acres, in and around the City, to be proclaimed a NATIONAL MONUMENT, by President Obama.
15. Residents and Citizens of the United States of America (“People”, “Governed”, “Citizens”)
16. The State of Arizona (“State”)
17. United States Constitution (“Constitution”)
18. United States Federal Government: President AND Congress, in Washington D.C. (“Federal”)
19. United States Congress: House of Representatives AND Senate (“Congress”)
20. Office of the United States President, Barack Obama, in the White House (“Administration”)
21. Proclamation, by the President of the United States, of a National Monument (“Proclamation”)


Oak Creek Canyon

Oak Creek Canyon

1. My name is David Reyburn, I live in Oak Creek Canyon, Sedona, 86336. I live OUTSIDE the City limits yet INSIDE the boundaries of the Proposal.
2. I am NOT AN ATTORNEY, but I am entering this document into the PUBLIC RECORD, for inclusion in the Packet for the Council meeting on October 13, 2015, as a DETAILED source of INFORMATION.
3. MY COMMENTS are the result of my research and my beliefs that are based on my logical conclusions.
4. To the best of my ability, I’ve attempted to be OBJECTIVE AND ACCURATE in what I’m presenting.
5. In QUOTATIONS, I may have ADDED parenthetical comments and/or emphasis to the original.
6. MY INTENT is for this document to be put into the PUBLIC RECORD, with detailed FACTS and ISSUES, so that it might be used for any LEGAL ACTION, IF it is determined that willful, illegal, and/or unconstitutional activity has, IN FACT, occurred.
7. I believe that illegal activity MAY have occurred during the process of KSB ADVOCATING its Proposal, getting SUPPORT of Council, and SUBMISSION of its Proposal to the Administration.
8. I believe that my constitutionally guaranteed CIVIL RIGHTS have been repeatedly VIOLATED, and that my future FREEDOM is threatened by any ACTION Council takes to SUPPORT the Proposal.
9. I believe that the CIVIL RIGHTS and freedom of ALL RESIDENTS in the area affected by the Proposal WILL be violated by an ACTION of Council, since it FAR exceeds Council’s legal RANGE of authority, WITHOUT first obtaining the CONSENT of the Governed.
10. I believe that KSB has violated its NON-PROFIT STATUS by aggressively promoting its Proposal, in a way that exceeds the restrictions on LOBBYING that are CONDITIONS of its 501(c)(3) status.
11. I believe that the City and its Council have EXCEEDED their legal authority by violating the RIGHTS of ALL People WITHIN the boundaries (Amendment 12 boundaries, of 160,000 acres) of the Proposal.
——- a. The City has NO jurisdictional authority to pass judgement on property OUTSIDE City boundaries.
——- b. Councilors have NO justification to take their ELECTION to be a mandate for their SUPPORT of relinquishing private property WITHIN City limits, over to CONTROL by Federal regulations.
——- c. If the City is WITHIN the boundaries of the Monument, then Citizens lose their constitutional rights.
12. I believe the Administration does not have Constitutional authority, under the Act, to seize People’s land.
13. City Council will have, as an AGENDA item, an opportunity to VOTE IN SUPPORT of the Proposal, at the Council meeting of October 13, 2015. I REQUEST that Council VOTE AGAINST the Proposal.


Village of Oak Creek Photo by Bill Kusner

Village of Oak Creek Photo by Bill Kusner

1. November 25, 2014
——– a. NEW Council Members, who are NOW Councilors, take their OATH OF OFFICE
——– b. “I, ______, do solemnly swear, or affirm, that I will support the CONSTITUTION of the United States, and the Constitution and laws of the State of Arizona, that I will bear TRUE FAITH and allegiance to the same, and defend them against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and that I will faithfully and IMPARTIALLY discharge the duties of the office of (Mayor/Councilor) according to the best of my ability, so help me God, or so I do affirm.” (11/25/2014 Council, from video)
2. December 5, 2014
——– a. NSA designation renamed to Scenic Area Protection.
——– b. “NSA designation – Ernie Strauch, Sedona, advised that KSB is moving forward with a scenic area protection committee to examine ideas. This item will remain as a Council priority and be RENAMED SCENIC AREA PROTECTION.” (12/5/2014 Council Minutes )
3. January 2015
——– a. Council’s 2015 PRIORITY SETTING meeting.
——– b. “During the 2015 Council priority setting process, the Council identified SCENIC AREA PROTECTION as a priority. This included supporting the efforts of Keep Sedona Beautiful (KSB) to pursue VARIOUS OPTIONS for national scenic area protection. (9/22/2015 Packet, page 163)
4. January 27, 2015
——- a. Councilor LeFevre and KSB
——- b. “She (Councilor LeFevre) also went to a Keep Sedona Beautiful board meeting, and they are very happy to have a Council liaison serving. They are pursuing signage in the City indicating the Dark Sky designation. She is working with KSB on a Keep Sedona Clean program. KSB is pursuing  some form of scenic protection for the area.” (1/27/2015 Council Minutes)

Camp Verde Arizona

Camp Verde Arizona

5. June 10, 2015
——- a. KSB’s presentation, by Tom O’Halloran, of KSB’s SOLE Proposal for environmental protection.
——- b. “KSB came back to (City) Council on June 10, 2015 recommending the creation of a National Monument and presented a draft resolution supporting the same. Council provided DIRECTION to KSB to engage in PUBLIC OUTREACH and come back to Council with an update. STAFF WAS DIRECTED TO ASSIST KSB IN DEVELOPING A THOROUGH PUBLIC OUTREACH PLAN and to conduct preliminary research on the pros and cons of national monuments.” (9/22/2015 Packet, page 163).
6. July 15, 2015
——- a. KSB’s presentation, by Tom O’Halloran, of its SOLE Proposal for environmental protection.
7. September 8, 2015
——- a. Councilor LeFevre publicly announces she will NOT be attending the 9/22/2015 Council meeting.
——- b. “I just wanted to give my APOLOGIES, for NOT being able to be at the next meeting, at the Council on the 22nd, when discussing about national monuments and designation. And, I’m going to try and listen in from Italy, because that is where I’m going to be. And we’ll see how that goes. …But, anyway, it’ll be like midnight, or 2:00 in the morning, so something, I don’t know. But, I, obviously, you know, would like to listen in, so, if I can, I will. But, I just wanted to give my apologies, because I WAS INSTRUMENTAL in getting it ON the agenda, in the first place.” (Councilor LEFEVRE, transcription of 9/8/2015 Council video, item 8c, at 10:53 in video clip)
——- c. “Are you (LeFevre) going to be GONE TOMORROW, as well? (LeFevre answers ‘yes’) Yea, right, THAT’S WHAT I THOUGHT. So, we’ll be … you’ll be excused for that one too.” (Mayor MORIARTY, transcription of 9/8/2015 Council video, item 8c, at 11:45 in video clip)
——- d. Therefore, AT the 9/8/2015 Council meeting, Mayor Moriarty PERSONALLY knew that Councilor LeFevre would NOT be at the 9/22/2015 meeting. The 9/22/2015 agenda had NOT been published.
8. September 16, 2015
——- a. My hour-long appointment with the City Manager, Justin Clifton.
9. September 22, 2015
——- a. Possible VOTE to support Proposal, with presentations, with Member Angela LeFevre ABSENT.
——- b. No vote was taken, DESPITE large attendance by the Public, SO THAT Angela LeFevre could vote.
——- c. “I, actually, am interested in not only SLOWING the whole thing (Proposal) down, but I do think it’s not really fair that one of our Council members (LeFevre) is not here, and to make a decision this major, without her. Especially, since SHE WAS ONE OF THE MAJOR PROPONENTS OF THE ISSUE. I just don’t feel right about doing anything, when she’s not here. Nor would I like to have a MAJOR DISCUSSION without her. So, in the interest of that I would like … and, we had a REQUEST also, actually, FROM KSB, TO TABLE at this time, as you heard from Carolyn.” (Mayor MORIARTY, transcription of 9/22/2015 Council video, item 8b, at 85:30 in 2/2 video clip)
——- d. “That being said, I’ll be honest with you, I am very disappointed that we’re (Council) not going to make a decision here tonight, one way or the other. I mean, I think WE KNEW that Councilor LeFevre was NOT going to be here, that WE SHOULD HAVE POSTPONED THIS. Because all these people showed up, with a lot of energy, a lot of work, and to present their ideas and thoughts. To postpone it, are we going to go through this whole thing again, spending three hours on the same thing? I think it’s a waste of time. … I PREFER THAT WE MAKE THE VOTE RIGHT NOW. Obviously, I THINK I’M OUTVOTED in that. But if we are going to do that, then I think we should also put the RESOLUTION in there AGAINST … you’ve got one “for” and you’ve got one “against”, that we will NOT support anything to that effect. Anyway, I’m disappointed in ourselves, that we’re not going to make the decision tonight.” (Councilor MARTINEZ, transcription of 9/22/2015 Council video, item 8b, at 92:17 in 2/2 video clip)
——- e. “ … And the reason I say that is that we had this ON THE AGENDA FOR A LONG TIME, and WE DIDN’T FIND OUT she was going to be gone UNTIL WAY AFTER it was put on the agenda. And so, this is JUST THE WAY IT WAS PLANNED, THAT’S THE WAY IT IS. I, it has nothing to say about my position, because my position has not changed. And I still feel the same way, MY QUESTIONS are not all answered. Frankly, I don’t know when they will be. … So, yeah, I just don’t have all my questions answered and I don’t think I will anytime soon, very frankly. So, I would rather not vote at all, on anything. But, I understand that “you” want us to. I just don’t have my questions answered. I’m not in a position that I want to vote. Sorry. THAT’S THE WAY IT IS. So, is there a motion to table?” (Mayor MORIARTY, transcription of 9/22/2015 Council video, item 8b, at 93:45 in 2/2 video clip)
——- f. CORRECTION of Mayor’s comments that “we had this ON THE AGENDA for a long time”. I was AT the 9/8/2015 Council meeting, at which Councilor LeFevre publicly announced, at the Council table, that, specifically, she would NOT be able to attend the 9/22/2015. AT THAT TIME, the MAYOR KNEW of this, AND the 9/22/2015 agenda would NOT have yet been PUBLISHED.
——- g. THEREFORE, if the Mayor was SO INSISTENT, at that time, to have Councilor LeFevre vote, she should have REMOVED the KSB Proposal as an agenda item from the 9/22/2015 Council meeting.
10. September 23, 2015
——- a. Council’s priority clarification process.
——- b. Myself, and two others, turned in request cards to SPEAK at the 9/23/2015 Council meeting. I was told by Joanne Cook, Deputy City Clerk, that the MAYOR had decided that WE COULD NOT SPEAK ON THE AGENDA ITEM 3B, despite there being clear INSTRUCTIONS on the City’s 9/23/2015 agenda, as to the “Guidelines For Public Comment”. NONE of us spoke at that meeting.
11. October 13, 2015
——- a. Possible VOTE to support Proposal, presentations (?), with Member Angela LeFevre PRESENT.


1. NO national monument has EVER included an entire city or municipality WITHIN its boundaries.
2. I believe there will be a reduction or loss of People’s CIVIL RIGHTS, as a result of the ADVOCACY by KSB, the SUPPORT by Council, and a PROCLAMATION by the Administration.
3. THE ACT is alleged to be the “LEGAL” BASIS for a proclamation by the Administration, HOWEVER, there has been NO EFFORT BY KSB to adhere to the LIMITATIONS contained within the Act:
——- a. There has been NO INVENTORY of the OBJECTS of antiquity that KSB alleges it wants to protect.
——- b. With NO inventory, there can be no plan for HOW to preserve the OBJECTS of antiquity.
——- c. With NO inventory, a MINIMAL amount of land, for protection of antiquities, can’t be determined.
4. The REAL MOTIVATION for the Proposal being selected as the ONLY alternative to attain the ORIGINAL GOAL, preservation of scenic area, is POLITICAL in nature, not ENVIRONMENTAL.
——- a. Requires ONLY Administration Proclamation, NOT involving Congress, NO public input process.
——————- 1) The reason that the Monument was KSB’s ONLY “environmental” alternative, is that it was the ONLY option that didn’t require congressional approval, ONLY requiring an Administration Proclamation. (according to the City Manager, during my appointment on 9/16/2015)
——- b. The Monument LOCKS IN Federal land, so that Congress would NOT turn it over to State control.
——————- 1) “Most of the (congressional) bills introduced to CONVERT federal lands to the states EXCLUDE National Parks and National Monuments. IF this type of (congressional) bill were to pass and become law, and IF this 160,000 acres were a National Monument, it would be EXCLUDED from the POOL of lands that COULD be converted into state hands.” (9/22/2015 Packet, page 175; from a 9/14/2015 letter by Norris Peterson, V.P. of KSB)

national monument map——————-2) KSB is IRRATIONALLY OPPOSED to a possible FUTURE TRANSFER of Federal lands to State control, in which it is feared that the State will SELL those state lands to private citizens. (see 9/22/2015 Packet, page 175, of a 9/14/2015 letter by Norris Peterson, V.P. of KSB)
5. The Monument designation will severely LIMIT and/or eliminate People’s right to LOCAL CONTROL and PUBLIC PARTICIPATION in the legal process.
——- a. “From what STAFF has found, however, once a monument proposal is SUBMITTED to the President and any public input is received, there is NO OTHER FORMAL WAY in which local stake holds (sic) are assured of ANY PARTICIPATION.” (City Manager’s Memo, 9/22/2015 Packet, page 168)
——- b. BOB THORPE, State Representative for District #6, described the Proclamation PROCESS in Washington D.C., where a Proclamation is written by a Federal staff member, who DETERMINES the final WORDING of the Proclamation, in a “BLACK BOX” process, then, immediately after, it’s
proclaimed, with NO public debate. (Bob Thorpe speaking at a public meeting, on 9/21/2015)
6. I’M CONCERNED that Citizens and residents within the Monument boundaries will become “WARDS OF THE STATE” (WARD: “a person deemed LEGALLY INCOMPETENT”) , subject to all the REGULATIONS of the Monument, LOSING our inalienable RIGHT of LOCAL CONTROL.
7. There has NOT been a THOROUGH PUBLIC OUTREACH PLAN for the KSB Proposal
——- a. The City Manager ADMITTED that KSB has NOT done a thorough public outreach, saying that IF HE would have done the public outreach, that it would include: (from my conversation with the City Manager, on 9/16/2015)
——————- 1) Develop a PROCESS that would take a COUPLE OF YEARS.
——————- 2) Engage ALL major stakeholders, including non-traditional partners (ranchers, businesses, etc.)
——————- 3) Start with the PROBLEM (environmental protection)
——————- 4) Offer different ALTERNATIVES, and NOT start with a SOLUTION (Monument designation)
——- b. City Staff, including the City Manager, were DIRECTED by Council, on 6/10/2015, to “ASSIST KSB in developing a thorough public outreach plan …” (9/22/2015 Packet, page 163)
——- c. The PROBLEM is that this ASSISTANCE to KSB was NOT DONE, for whatever reason.
——————- 1) Yavapai County and Coconino COUNTY officials were NOT formally notified of the Proposal.
——————- 2) CITY Councils of Cottonwood and Clarkdale were NOT formally involved.
——————- 3) NON-TRADITIONAL PARTNERS (ranchers, businesses, etc.) were NOT formally involved.
——————- 4) KSB had COMPUTER PROBLEMS such that public comments/questions entered on its website were DELETED, so that as of 9/10/2015 there were NO COMMENTS on the website.
——————- 5) On KSB’s WEBSITE, when a “comments” button was “clicked”, the visitor was automatically COUNTED as having SUPPORTED the KSB Proposal, to the shock/surprise/fury of some visitors. (from comments and discussion at a 9/10/2015 KSB meeting)
——————- 6) In an INFORMAL OPINION POLL, conducted on RedRockNews.com, responses to the question, “Should Sedona become a National Monument?” were 80% NO, and only 16% YES.
——————- 7) “Perhaps the most significant change since the last meeting has been the emergence of a more vocal and organized opposition to a monument.” (City Manager, 9/22/2015 Packet, page 167)
——————- 8) KSB has FAILED to form a COALITION of support from OTHER local environmental groups.

8. Despite the LACK of public outreach to major stakeholders:
——– a. KSB still has scheduled NOTIFICATION of Federal Agencies of their “informal” Proposal to occur in November 2015. (Realtors’ Meeting, 9/21/2015)
——- b. Even an “informal” submission by KSB to the Administration, would “set the wheels in motion.”
——– c. KSB, in my opinion, is seeking Council support as a means of IMPLYING a broad public support for KSB’s Proposal, yet requesting support from ONLY SEVEN Council Members, AFTER KSB totally FAILED in its PUBLIC OUTREACH TO MAJOR STAKEHOLDERS. This is LAZY!


national boundary map final

The vast majority of the 160,000 acres affected by the Proposal are outside the City of Sedona limits, and therefore outside Council’s legal jurisdiction. Keep Sedona Beautiful, the sole proponent of the National Monument, is a non-profit housed within the city limits and its effort has not found a coalition of support in Sedona and the Verde Valley. A recent September opinion poll tabulated 80% voting against the NM and only 16% in favor.

1. PUBLIC INPUT on agenda item 8b, at the 9/23/2015 Council meeting, was DENIED by the Mayor for myself and two other members of the Public;
2. PUBLIC INPUT was unnecessarily REDUCED from the normal THREE minutes, to TWO minutes, at the 9/22/2015 Council meeting, for Agenda item 8b;
3. The VAST MAJORITY of the 160,000 acres affected by the Proposal are OUTSIDE the City limits, and therefore OUTSIDE Council’s LEGAL JURISDICTION;
4. IF Council Members, who are also KSB members, fail to RECUSE themselves from voting on the KSB Proposal, they’ll have a CONFLICT OF INTEREST, reflecting their LACK OF IMPARTIALITY;
5. The City, City Council, and KSB have FAILED to conduct a THOROUGH PUBLIC OUTREACH TO MAJOR STAKEHOLDERS, and have therefore NOT received the “consent of the Governed”;
6. KSB has been the SOLE creator, advocate, data collector, decision-maker, and submitter of the Proposal;
7. The Act itself is unconstitutional, by giving the Administration the authority to ACQUIRE property, without DUE PROCESS of law, EXCEEDING the separation of powers enumerated in the Constitution;
8. The FAST PACE of the Monument approval process, threatens IRREVOCABLE HARM to the People;
9. The motivation for KSB selecting ONLY the Proposal was POLITICAL, not ENVIRONMENTAL;
10. There is a justifiable FEAR that Council will VOTE, on 10/13/2015, to SUPPORT the KSB Proposal.


1. The Mayor has been unnecessarily RESTRICTIVE in following NORMAL public comment procedures;
2. Council Members are acting OUTSIDE their legal, representative authority, NOT conferred by election;
3. The City and City Council have NO LEGAL RIGHT to unilaterally PREJUDICE a public policy issue that AFFECTS LANDS OUTSIDE the City’s jurisdictional boundaries;
4. Council does not have LEGAL authority to GIVE AWAY the land and rights of Citizens of the City;
5. KSB has engaged in aggressive LOBBYING, which is a violation of its RESTRICTIONS as a 501(c)(3);
6. Council Members, who are KSB members, must RECUSE themselves from voting on the KSB Proposal, otherwise they violate their OATH OF OFFICE, to IMPARTIALLY discharge their duties.
7. I REQUEST A LEGAL OPINION from the CITY ATTORNEY, to be entered into the Public Record, about the CONCERNS I have raised in this document.
8. For ALL these reasons, I REQUEST that this Council VOTE AGAINST supporting KSB’s Proposal.

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

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


  1. To All Readers at The Eye:

    KSB’s entire proposal is predicated upon a single false premise which is that the SVVRRNM will be managed by the Dept of Ag’s U.S. Forest Service under its lenient rules as to public access and activities within the confines of the National Monument. If Obama does not choose the USFS as manager, management will likely default to the Dept of Interior’s National Park Service and its Draconian rules of public access and activities therein. I have argued this point to those leaning towards KSB’s proposal until blue in the face.

    BELOW, is a study (partial rendition here due to unwieldy length) done for the Congressional Research Service, to address the question of which agency should manage a new National Monument designation. While the study makes it clear that there is NO CLEAR RESOLUTION as to the question, two things that are clear are that:

    1.] the NPS has extraordinarily more experience at Monument management and, along with the Dept of Interior’s BLM, has always been the Presidential choice, and 2.] regardless of which agency should be designated as a Monument manager upon issuance of the enabling Proclamation, the management agency can be changed, at will, by the next President or Congress.

    So, my point is proven. KSB doesn’t have, nor will they ever get, a guarantee in perpetuity that the USFS, with its lenient rules policy, will be, or always be, the SVRRNM monument manager. Every time KSB promotes their 31 point list of nefarious management recommendations, they need to be reminded of this fact!

    ~Rick (Warning: excerpts from study below…the complete study is massive in length but this is the gist of it…notations not recited here)

    Congressional Research Service

    National Monuments and the Antiquities Act
    Carol Hardy Vincent
    Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
    Kristina Alexander
    Legislative Attorney
    July 20, 2010


    The Antiquities Act does not specify which federal agency will or should manage any particular national monument, although the management of early monuments was generally given to the agency with existing jurisdiction over the property.[100] After the law’s passage, the Departments of Agriculture, War, and Interior all managed national monuments with similar but minimal protection methods.[101] The Act explicitly granted the President the ability to “reserve” land for a particular use, and not others,[102] but political discussions continued as to which agencies should be managing the national monuments.[103] For instance, there was significant competition between NPS and the Forest Service to maintain and acquire jurisdiction over national monuments.[104]

    In response to President Herbert Hoover’s request in 1929, the Attorney General opined that the President lacked the authority to transfer the national monuments under the Departments of War and Agriculture to NPS without legislative action because “Congress intended that jurisdiction to administer the national monuments which the President was . . . authorized to create should reside in the Departments which had jurisdiction respectively of the land within which the monuments were located.”[105] Shortly following this opinion, legislation was passed in response to the depression that allowed the President to transfer the functions of any executive agency to the jurisdiction of any other executive agency.[106] Relying upon this authority in 1933, President Franklin Roosevelt issued Executive Order No. 6166,[107] which moved national monuments not previously under the Department of the Interior’s jurisdiction to the jurisdiction of NPS.[108] NPS Director Albright described the order of June 10, 1933 as accomplishing at least three “very important things” for NPS: it made NPS the “Federal agency charged with the administration of historic and archaeological sites and structures throughout the United States,” it expanded NPS influence, and it made NPS “a very strong agency with such a distinctive and independent field of services as to end its possible eligibility for merger or consolidation with another bureau.”[109] Between 1933 and 1978, no Presidentially-created national monument was managed by an agency other than NPS.[110] Prior to President Clinton’s monument designations, for example, “management of almost every large monument had been taken away from the . . . [BLM] upon its designation [as a national monument], and transferred to the . . . [NPS].”[111]

    The Sonoran Desert National Monument is one of President Clinton’s designations under BLM.[113] These designations were controversial because of BLM’s multiple-use mission,[114] generally consisting of large landscapes and ecosystems.

    After significant deliberation, Congress decided to place the power to reserve lands in the hands of the President. The President then uses that power to exercise his discretion, albeit not wholly unlimited, to identify the managing agency in each monument designation. What has resulted, both in the President’s designation and the way in which the monument is managed, is an ongoing debate as to whether this authority constitutes a violation of the separation of powers.

    The President’s authority to choose a management agency other than NPS has been questioned. Before 1933, monuments were managed by different agencies, but in that year President Franklin Roosevelt consolidated management of national monuments in the NPS. Following the 1933

    37 See Alaska v. Carter, 462 F. Supp. 1155 (D. Alaska 1978) (NEPA does not apply to presidential proclamation under
    the Antiquities Act).
    38 The status quo of BLM-managed lands could be maintained, because § 204(e) of FLPMA (43 U.S.C. 1714(e))
    authorizes the Secretary to temporarily withdraw BLM lands for a period of up to two years. Comparable authority
    does not exist with respect to lands managed by other agencies.
    National Monuments and the Antiquities Act
    Congressional Research Service 10


    consolidation, until 1978 no Presidentially created monuments were managed by an agency other than the NPS. In 1978, two of the Alaska monuments created by President Carter were directed to be managed by the Forest Service, part of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and two were managed by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Assigning management to the Forest Service was controversial, and the two monuments were ultimately given statutory direction for Forest Service management.39

    The Supreme Court has suggested that it is entirely proper to switch management of federal lands among federal agencies. As noted earlier, in its decision regarding the Channel Islands National Monument, the Court said that the Antiquities Act could mean that the “land is shifted from one federal use, and perhaps from one federal managing agency, to another.”40 A 1980 opinion from the Office of Legal Counsel (Department of Justice) appears to indicate that the President may have some flexibility in choosing the managers of post-1933 monuments.41 Others also assert that the authority of the President under the Antiquities Act carries with it discretion to choose the managing agency. Some critics contend that management by an agency other than the NPS is an illegal transfer of the current functions of the NPS.

    Others counter that establishing a new monument under another agency would not constitute a reorganization because management of current NPS units, and the general authority of the NPS to manage monuments, would be unaffected. Even if placing management authority under a department other than the DOI might constitute a reorganization, the President nevertheless might be able to move a function of the NPS to other DOI agencies under Congressional approved authority allowing transfers of functions within DOI.42

  2. J. J. says:

    YEAH! Me too.

    Well done.

  3. Superb documentation from start to finish, Mr. Reyburn. Nothing like a comprehensive presentation of facts to set the record straight. Thank you very much for your time and effort. If this doesn’t make an impact on the Sedona City Council (notice the “Sedona” versus “regional” council) then what will? They have clearly overstepped with their blatant plan to manipulate the system during the past couple of years. That seems to have become their sole mission – to suppress those who dare question let alone vocally object to their action.

    They have now been royally exposed. Great job.

    Eddie Maddock

  4. Donna Varney says:

    Thank you David.

    Great article!

  5. If v_v wants protection (see map) let residents in that area and the owners or county supervisors call to reach out to their public. Keep out of the valley, Sedona & KSB. You’re unwanted.

  6. There are many stunning revelations within the context of the above report. The never-ending imposition of the Sedona City Council to take charge and represent the entire Verde Valley seems to always be center theme. Could this be a result of the strong-arm tactics of the extensively city financed “regional” Chamber of Commerce? Maybe time for payback for all the advertising members receive outside the city council’s jurisdiction but at the expensive of city based, city tax collecting businesses?

    And now the new precedent of allowing issues to be tabled if a council member is absent? So why should Angela LeFevre be treated differently than other council members when she is off on a vacation? Maybe it would be a good thing, though, if all decisions required the attendance of the entire seven-member council. That would impede progress(?) and maybe nothing would get done, which might be better for all of us.

    Then we come to Keep Sedona Beautiful. What in the world has happened to a respectable group that was originated to offer non-toxic solutions to the preservation of the beauty of Sedona? Has it been infiltrated by politicians only interested in their mission to divide and conquer no matter what the cost? Foolish question.

    Wake up true dedicated supporters of KSB. Demand for that once respected organization to cease and desist with the strong arm approach. Otherwise the legacy you will leave isn’t at all what those who faithfully pledged endowments for your continuation. You go ahead and file the NM proclamation without substantial support of the entire Verde Valley (and that does not mean Sedona City Council) and your organization will be toast. Is it really worth it?

  7. J. J. says:

    For those unable to connect the dots, there were 6 council members at the last city council meeting = 3 in opposition, 3 in favor. Mayor wanted Angela LeFevre there to break the tie to have a 4-3 majority for the National Monument. Big duh.

  8. Justin says:

    If that’s the head count JJ, SCC missed a stellar opportunity to get out from under a sinking ship. Gotta love the Californians, they hated paying taxes & living there but are damned to screw it up here to replicate it. Follow closely:

    Aspiring senator Lefevre flew off to Italy to get out from her hoopah of stupidity & having to register a vote, not wanting this 80% negative voter recognition on her future record; be careful Angela when you jump on a wagon like Tom’s, his wagon’s always got a broken wheel that falls apart somewhere down the road. Italy gave LeFevre saving face & Moriarty threw her under the bus. See it? Get it? Moriarty knows the monument is a bad deal & wants LeFevre to tote the water as this debacle is hers.

    Paying attention SCC? Jump off the 80% negatives bandwagon Jablow & Dinunzio & indicate you will be voting no with Martinez. Don’t wait because you will then leave Moriarty covered in horse manure or it’s going to be one of you. Do you get it or see it yet? Make Moriarty take the swing because if she votes yes, you win. If she votes, no, you win. Good grief what does it take to get a political genius or two around here.

  9. Had me laughing Justin then saw your humor masked truth. You should be running for office. But you likely don’t want to corral with those horses.

  10. Want to voice a NO for the National Monument designation:

    IMPORTANT BUT EASY ACTION NEEDED. 3 SIMPLE THINGS TO DO RIGHT NOW. Feel free to forward these action steps to your club members or neighbors and friends.

    1.Please send an email today to BIG PARK RCC (include your name and address and VOTE NO) which will be considered at this THURSDAY’s meeting (and please attend the meeting!) EMAIL ADDRESS IS: info@bigparkcouncil.org

    2.Please send an email today (include your name and address and VOTE NO) to the Sedona Chamber of Commerce expressing your position on the national monument. Again, this is important because the Chamber is being courted by the KSB Coalition/SVVRRNM
    EMAIL ADDRESS IS: admin@sedonachamber.com

    3.Same goes for the Sedona Village Business Association (include your name and address and VOTE NO).

Leave a Reply

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