Redefining Hundreds of Thousands of Acres as a National Monument Misinterprets the 1906 Antiquities Act

From 16 U.S.C. 431. National monuments; reservation of lands; relinquishment of private claims: “The President of the United States is authorized, in his discretion, to declare by public proclamation historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest that are situated upon the lands owned or controlled by the Government of the United States to be national monuments, and may reserve as a part thereof parcels of land, the limits of which in all cases shall be confined to the smallest area compatible with the proper care and management of the objects to be protected. When such objects are situated upon a tract covered by a bona fide unperfected claim or held in private ownership, the tract, or so much thereof as may be necessary for the proper care and management of the object, may be relinquished to the Government, and the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to accept the relinquishment of such tracts in behalf of the Government of the United States.”

I want to stress that the Act specifies the president “may reserve as a part thereof parcels of land, the limits of which in all cases shall be confined to the smallest area compatible with proper care and management of the objects to be protected.”

The Act’s original aim was to primarily safeguard historically significant items located on specific land parcels—the minimal amount necessary to maintain that historical significance.

Related Stories

The authority granted to the president was intended to allow the government to quickly protect vulnerable resources or sites. It was never meant to facilitate the blanket declaration of expansive monuments, such as the Chuckwalla National Monument, located at the intersection of the Colorado and Mojave Deserts.

This misapplication of the Antiquities Act has far-reaching consequences, including the restriction of commerce on public lands, predominantly via the prohibition of mining. This has led to a significant loss of access to valuable rare earth elements and other essential minerals that could be harnessed in environmentally sustainable manners.

Contrastingly, countries like China do not impose such stringent environmental regulations on mining, which means the cell phone in your pocket might not have been sourced through eco-friendly practices. The U.S. imports 100% of numerous critical minerals from China, Russia, and other non-allied nations, a trend that has persisted for many years.

Many groups oppose the recent designation of the monument through the Antiquities Act; however, this dissent has been conspicuously absent from major news coverage of the matter. Several individuals have attempted to submit articles to local and regional news outlets, but these were mostly overlooked. The Antiquities Act was never designed for the designation of hundreds of thousands of acres at once. As previously explained, it was structured to preserve small historical locations.

In the future, the federal government may seek to close off the remaining small areas due to potential overuse by the growing number of visitors. This scenario is contributing to the situation at Chuckwalla. Consider the Mojave National Preserve—now a vast area with restricted access. In the early 1990s, when the preserve was proposed, assurances were made that roads would remain open and that the 1,500 mining claims could still be accessed. Now, those roads are closed, and access to the area, including federally held mining claims, has been nearly entirely revoked.

There’s a strong desire for people to have their electronic devices, yet they frequently oppose mining activities. Everything we utilize that isn’t grown originates from mining. There was a hole in the ground somewhere, and we must extract minerals from the Earth to create functional modern devices. As these lands continue to be closed off, the substantial mineral wealth remains locked away, exacerbating our dependency on foreign nations for raw materials.

While it’s commendable to want to protect the land, we support that cause. However, the lands in question were already under strict protection and regulation, while remaining open to public access and multiple uses. Congress ought to have conducted a thorough hearing on this matter, allowing all perspectives to be heard before proceeding with any decisions.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.