Finding Common Ground on County Roads
Op-Ed by Governor Mike Leavitt
April 20, 2003

Imagine the confusion that would result if the county recorder’s office burned down and ownership records for the entire community were lost. Utah finds itself in a somewhat similar situation with respect to county roads. Our mostly rural transportation system used by ranchers, miners, hikers, hunters, federal land managers, county officials, tourists and others is caught in a divisive and costly legal battle over rights of way on potentially thousands of roads.

R.S. 2477 roads, named after the federal law that created the rights of way, are a complex problem with a simple origin. In 1866, Congress passed a law that granted the public rights of way over federal land. During the next 110 years, thousands of roads were built as our nation’s policy to “settle the west” came to fruition. When Congress repealed the law as part of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, the federal government acknowledged the rights of way for roads built prior to 1976, but did not identify which roads carried this blanket grant.

The result has been nearly 30 years of continual confusion and confrontation; much like would happen if the county recorder’s office were destroyed.

Polarized extreme positions are not productive in solving complex problems like this one. Phrases like “bulldozing the west” or “secret negotiations, behind closed doors” or “they’re giving away our rights” are neither true nor productive. People of good will can join in an open process to seek common ground on the vast majority of roads for which there is indisputable information about their history, use and existence outside protected environmental areas.

The agreement Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton and I signed on April 9, 2003 provides a framework for decision-making. The centerpiece of the agreement is an open administrative process that permits the sharing of information and gives everyone an opportunity to comment before decisions are made. Instead of litigation, which is a closed process decided by the courts, we have opted for an open administrative process. Those who represent otherwise are wrong.

The agreement includes seven touchstones to determine which roads qualify for consideration. Those who claim that this agreement will result in converting trails in national parks or wilderness areas into paved superhighways are simply not telling the truth.

This is the truth: Unless a road can be documented as existing before 1976 and is still traveled routinely by car or truck, it is not being claimed under this agreement. If a road is in a national park, wilderness area or even a wilderness study area, we are not claiming it.

Do the counties or state plan to expand these roads? No. The agreement defines the roads by their existing use within the existing disturbance. Any use beyond ordinary maintenance will go through environmental review.

Finally, we have not prejudiced any future claims. At another time, after we have made substantial progress on the vast majority of roads on which we agree, we can consider other rights.

In the public discussion about R.S. 2477 county roads, you will hear disturbing accusations about state and county efforts to solve this problem. Pay careful attention because a closer examination will reveal that the state, in consultation with every county, is taking a common sense, common ground approach. We desire to secure our transportation system, protect Utah’s most important scenic areas and honor vested property rights. After three decades of polarization, conflict, cultural division, litigation, economic uncertainty and expense, it’s time for a sensible solution.