S.90 - Historic Roadways Protection Act (119th Congress)
Summary
S.90, the Historic Roadways Protection Act, seeks to prohibit the Secretary of the Interior from using funds to finalize or implement certain travel management plans in Utah. This prohibition is tied to the adjudication of R.S. 2477 cases, which involve disputes over rights-of-way on public lands.
The bill specifically targets travel management areas like the Henry Mountains, Dinosaur (North), and San Rafael Swell. It also lists specific court cases related to these rights-of-way disputes.
The bill aims to protect historic roadways by preventing the implementation of travel management plans until these legal disputes are resolved.
Expected Effects
The immediate effect would be a halt to the finalization and implementation of new travel management plans in the specified areas of Utah. This could impact recreational access, resource management, and land use planning within those areas.
Delaying the implementation of these plans could lead to continued uncertainty regarding land access and usage. The final resolution depends on the adjudication of the R.S. 2477 cases.
Potential Benefits
- Could protect existing access to historic roadways and prevent restrictions on travel.
- May provide more certainty for local communities and businesses that rely on access to these areas.
- Could ensure that valid rights-of-way are recognized and protected.
- May reduce potential conflicts between different user groups (e.g., recreational users, ranchers, energy developers).
- Could allow for a more thorough assessment of the environmental and economic impacts of travel management plans.
Most Benefited Areas:
Potential Disadvantages
- Could delay or prevent the implementation of environmental protections and resource management measures.
- May lead to continued degradation of sensitive areas due to unrestricted travel.
- Could create uncertainty for recreational users and businesses that rely on well-managed travel routes.
- May exacerbate conflicts between different user groups.
- Could hinder the ability of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to effectively manage public lands.
Most Disadvantaged Areas:
Constitutional Alignment
The bill's alignment with the US Constitution is complex. Congress has the power to regulate federal lands under Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 (the Property Clause). However, the extent of this power is subject to debate, particularly when it affects state and local interests.
The bill could be seen as an attempt to protect states' rights and historical claims to roadways. However, it also potentially infringes upon the executive branch's authority to manage federal lands.
The bill does not appear to directly implicate any specific constitutional rights or amendments, such as the First Amendment or the Second Amendment.
Impact Assessment: Things You Care About ⓘ
This action has been evaluated across 19 key areas that matter to you. Scores range from 1 (highly disadvantageous) to 5 (highly beneficial).