Commissioner Doug Heaton Explains...

Well over ten years ago, an astute Mark Habbeshaw foresaw the efforts of an ever expanding federal government to claim jurisdiction and then close access to public lands through road closures.  Mark almost single handedly waged a war to stop the intrusion.  He organized a working group to study solutions and finally ran for and won a commission seat from which he eventually filed suit claiming jurisdiction over roads by quiet title under Revised Statute 2477 authority (RS2477).  Subsequent County Commissions have persisted in and expanded the effort to include virtually all of the roads in Kane County.  Those arguments have been before the court for years and finally we got our first decision granting quiet title to a majority of the roads claimed in the original suit.

Two years ago the State of Utah decided to join the effort and filed suits on behalf of the remaining counties that have similar roads.   The pending litigation includes many thousands of roads and promises to go on for years unless this precedent setting decision paves a way for a satisfactory negotiated settlement. 

The impact of this decision is ground breaking.  It validates the assertion that local jurisdictions that RS2477 claims are valid and affirms both jurisdiction and ownership of the roads claimed, setting precedent for the rest of the state and the nation to follow. 

Environmental groups have opposed this action, knowing that an absence of roads is a prerequisite for wilderness designation which appears to be their predominant goal.  They are offended that commercial concerns including mining, timber harvest, grazing and mineral and oil extraction are allowed to take place on the "public lands".  The primary tools to stop those activities have been wilderness designation, environmental regulation and endangered species critical habitat.  Road closure is a major objective in their agenda to preclude the public from access to the lands. 

The trap for the public is that preservationist propaganda fails to mention the fact that should they accomplished their objective, those who wish to enjoy what they they have contributed to preserve will find it inaccessible by vehicle. Unless they are young and vigorous enough to hike 50 miles they will have to "view" the scenic wild-lands from the perimeter.  Comparing the vast areas proposed for preservation versus our ability to see only limited distances that experience will prove disappointing.  We even lose the ability to enjoy pictures of it as commercial photography is also prohibited.  It kind of violates the principles of the American Disabilities Act doesn't it.

We are excited to announce that the Court has now ruled that we can keep and maintain these roads for public use.  It is a great victory for those who desire to enjoy these lands and for those who depend on the resources that must be accessed by road.  The decision not only grants title and jurisdiction, but also provides access widths for maintenance where required.