Off-road vehicle access restored in Glen Canyon National Recreation Area
Following a signature from President Donald Trump, the use of off-road vehicles and all-terrain vehicles has been restored on roads in the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area.
On Tuesday, the president signed a Congressional Review Act resolution, which overturns a National Park Service rule that restricted the use of vehicles on 24 miles of road in the recreation area. The resolution was introduced by Utah Republican Rep. Celeste Maloy and Sens. Mike Lee and John Curtis.
'When Utahns found out that the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area's Travel Management Plan included nonsensical restrictions on motorized access, they reached out for help,' Maloy said, according to a release from her office. 'We took legislative action and, through this CRA, reversed a rule pushed through by the previous administration. Utahns shouldn't be shut out of decisions that affect their own backyard.'
Maloy's resolution was filed under the Congressional Review Act, which allows Congress to overturn agency rules by a simple majority vote in both chambers. This vote has to be done within 60 legislative days of the rule's submission to Congress.
The CRA also prohibits the agency from issuing a new rule that is 'substantially the same' as the overturned rule unless authorized by a new piece of legislation.
'This was a classic case of sue-and-settle policymaking where bureaucrats caved to activists and cut Americans out of the process. That's not how representation is supposed to work,' Lee said, according to the release.
'I'm proud President Trump signed this CRA into law — making it clear that environmental groups don't get to dictate our National Recreation Areas through backroom deals. That's exactly what happened at Glen Canyon, and this law puts a stop to it. If it says, 'National Recreation Area' on the map, people should be able to recreate there," the senator added.
'Restoring off-road access in Glen Canyon is an important step to ensure our public lands remain open to the people — not closed off by Washington bureaucrats,' Curtis said. 'I look forward to getting out to Glen Canyon and enjoying its roads with my fellow Utahns.'
A National Park Service rule went into effect on Feb. 12, restricting the use of ORVs and street-legal ATVs on a 24-mile section of roads in Glen Canyon.
Conservationists had argued the rule protected rare remote locations in the nation, specifically the Orange Cliffs area and other similar areas.
'It's a dark day for all who love southern Utah and Glen Canyon's wild places,'' said Hanna Larsen, staff attorney for the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, when the legislation was introduced.
The route that will now be opened to vehicles includes an 8-mile section of the Poison Spring Loop and access roads to Lake Powell.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
I knew Trump and Musk would break up. I didn't know they'd do it on their own social media networks.
Elon Musk and Donald Trump are breaking up on social media. On the social media they own, that is: Musk is using Twitter and Trump is using Truth Social. But it wouldn't matter what platforms they use, or own: When you're this rich, famous and powerful, everything you say or type shows up everywhere, instantly. It was easy to predict that Elon Musk and Donald Trump would break up someday. Even the dummy typing this imagined it. What I didn't imagine was that the divorce between two of the most powerful men in the world would play out on rival social platforms. Musk is tweeting away on the thing many of us still call Twitter — which he owns, of course — and Trump is firing back on Truth Social — the would-be Twitter rival he owns. First and foremost, the spectacle of two billionaires having a potentially deeply consequential flame war is … truly something. When Jack Dorsey and crew were dreaming up their microblogging service nearly 20 years ago, they weren't dreaming of this. But the fact that it's happening on two different social networks is also fascinating. And it underscores that "social networks" isn't always the best way to think about these platforms. At least when it comes to their mega-rich, mega-wealthy owners, these things are simply megaphones to holler at the world. Trump, recall, became a surprisingly effective Twitter troll in the run-up to his first election, and especially once he took office. He became expert at "programming" the news by tapping out a few incendiary lines on his Twitter account, and reveling in the chaos that could create. (The guy typing this made a pretty good podcast about all that.) Then Twitter banned Trump, which by all accounts deeply upset Trump, and that banishment helped prompt Musk to buy Twitter, and then reinstate Trump. But in the meantime, Trump had created his own Truth Social network as a Twitter alternative. And Trump has both a legal obligation and a financial imperative to post on Truth Social first. A license agreement with Trump Media & Technology Group, the company that owns Truth Social, requires Trump to post all "non-political social media" items to Truth Social first, then wait six hours before running them anywhere else. More important: If the guy who owns the social media platform isn't using the social media platform for his social media, why would anyone else use it? Even after Musk and Trump merged forces last summer, Trump still spent almost no time on Twitter. Instead, he's kept plugging away on Truth Social. And what's happened since — and especially now — forces us to rethink how these platforms work. For instance: Lots of people who used to use the platform formerly known as Twitter thought that removing Trump from Twitter would diminish his power. But that obviously wasn't true. Trump crushed all comers in the last Republican primary, and won a meaningful victory in last fall's general election, despite little-to-no presence on Twitter. More important is that Trump's ability to make the world turn based on his words isn't dependent on Twitter at all. He's the President of the United States, so whatever he says, whenever he says it — on a Truth Social post, on the White House lawn, aboard Air Force One — gets instantly amplified, oftentimes with great consequence. Trump could spout off on Tumblr or Friendster (I just Googled — Friendster still exists) and his message would get out there. At the same time, Trump's presence on Truth Social doesn't seem to have meaningfully boosted usage on that platform. We can't measure that with traditional metrics — because, tellingly, Trump Media continues to not provide any metrics about how many people use the service — but on vibes. You may read plenty of stories about how Trump posted something on Truth Social, but what about anyone else? Meanwhile, the things we can see from Trump Media don't suggest the platform is booming: In 2024, the company's meager revenue line actually declined by 12% over the previous year. Even more telling may be the company's seeming pivot into life as a bitcoin repository — which may turn out to make a lot of money for Trump and his partners, but doesn't suggest a real interest in running a media platform. And at the same time, a Trump-less Twitter has … I don't know if thrived is the right word. A meaningful number of influential users and big advertisers have left the service, and its financial condition seems hopeful at best. But despite the rise of would-be challengers, Twitter remains the most prominent place for public, real-time chatter, more or less by default. That's why people who tell you social media isn't great for you still use Twitter when they want to insert themselves into the conversation — like The New York Times' Ezra Klein did last year during crucial points in the election cycle. That speaks to the stickiness of social networks, and how hard it is to replicate them somewhere else. But again, that isn't relevant to Musk's use of the platform to attack Trump: Musk could print out all of his insults on paper and they'd still carry the same weight and import. Put it another way: Mark Zuckerberg owns multiple huge social networks. If he were going to join this brawl, it wouldn't matter which one of them he used to come over the top rope. All that would matter is the world's second-richest man was in the fight, too, and anything he said or did would be covered by everyone, everywhere. So cut to Thursday, when Trump has been calling to cut "Billions and Billions of Dollars" from the federal budget by "terminat[ing] Elon's Governmental Subsidies and Contracts" and Musk is accusing Trump of suppressing embarrassing information about disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein because Trump "is in the Epstein files." The insults and threats are being lobbed from different platforms — and are at the same time directly responding to each other but also pretending the other one doesn't exist. Like exes who refuse to speak with each other, but spend all their time telling their mutual friends how awful the other one is, knowing it will get back directly to the person they're complaining about. Except in this case, the exes are two of the most powerful people in the world. So it doesn't matter what platform they use to do it. Read the original article on Business Insider
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
New state analysis shows 2.1% biennium budget increase
The full text of Montana's biennial budget laid out on a lawmaker's desk. (Micah Drew/ Daily Montanan) An analysis of Montana's budget for the 2025-27 biennium showed a 2.1% increase over the previous biennium, the Legislative Fiscal Division reported this week. Some members of the state's legislature said during the session the increase was double-digits, focusing specifically on the general fund, which House Appropriations Chair Llew Jones said was a misrepresentation of the budget. 'Sadly, members of Montana's Freedom Caucus have been deliberately misleading constituents, citing as much as an 18% increase in our state budget by including General Fund spending from the previous session and transfers to other state funds in their calculations,' Jones said in a press release. 'Instead, the total state budget will grow by just over 2% in the next two years, which we accomplished while also giving historic income and property tax cuts to Montana families and small businesses.' Jones stated the calculations factored in 'transfer of General Fund resources to special trusts and the distribution of significant income and property tax reductions' when coming to the 2.1% number. That growth rate is less than inflation, the release noted, an often repeated goal of Montana Gov. Greg Gianforte. Some Freedom Caucus members are skeptical about the calculations. Rep. Jerry Schillinger, R-Circle, said an effort had been made to cut certain items out of the budget toward the end of the session to 'make it look better' and added that the money would still be spent anyway. 'I just haven't verified their numbers yet, but I'm highly skeptical of what Representative Jones is talking about,' Schillinger told the Daily Montanan. The fight over the budget was bitter during the session and a coalition of Democrats and Republicans pushed through the $16.6 billion spending package. Schillinger said some 'big government' Republicans, instead of working with fellow conservatives, sought out Democrats to work with instead. He said this has been happening for several sessions. 'It just came out more and more into the open this session,' Schillinger said. He added that if the legislature had done its job, Gov. Gianforte, a Republican, wouldn't have to be spending the time 'vetoing all these bills.' Not all spending bills have been signed or vetoed, meaning the calculations could change depending on spending, the Legislative Fiscal Division analysis stated. Schillinger said that it appeared likely the Governor would also be signing the mega-trust bill discussed heavily near the end of the session. HB 924, for example, was touted by Jones as critical money for housing, childcare, and disaster resiliency. It became a touch point for spending hawks in the legislature who repeatedly decried the spending. A release stated, 'these trusts will increase Montana's resources.'
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Wheatfield looking to get its own zip code
The Town of Wheatfield is divided between four zip codes and has long wanted to rectify that. Town officials this week gave their support to federal legislation that would create a new zip code for the town. It is working with Congressman Tim Kennedy's office on the effort, as only Congress can grant the request. Currently, the town is divided between the following postal codes: • 14094, based around Lockport • 14132, based around Sanborn • 14120, based around North Tonawanda • 14304, based around Niagara Falls 'The Town of Wheatfield needs its own identity and having one zip code would help our community in this regard,' the resolution states. It is something the town has tried to accomplish with congressmen for the past 20 years. Town Supervisor Don MacSwan said the four codes come from when Wheatfield was a rural community with a small population. Now it is more of a bedroom community whose population over the past 30 years has gone from 11,125 in 1990 to a 2024 estimate of 18,578. 'Now is the time to give us a zip code,' MacSwan said. These four codes existing in one municipality have caused plenty of residential issues as the town grows. The resolution states this has caused confusion in filing death certificates and there are several street names and home addresses in common across the four zip codes. In one instance, a new home builder had its National Grid electric service delayed by two months due to a wrong zip code being listed. This change would not give the town a new post office. One such bill going through Congressional committee, H.R. 3095, lists the Town of Pendleton among 72 communities in 20 states that would get its own zip code if passed. That town is also divided between the 14120 and 14094 codes and saw its population go from 5,010 in 1990 to an estimated 7,135 in 2024. Congressman Nick Langworthy, whose district goes into Pendleton, gave his support for the change. Residents can write letters to the town showing their support so that this proposal does not die in committee.
