Five national parks in Utah, plus one national recreation area and two national monuments, will reopen, temporarily, under a deal the state reached with Interior Secretary Sally Jewell.
Under the agreement, the state will provide $1.67 million so Arches, Bryce Canyon, Capitol Reef, Canyonlands, and Zion national parks, along with Cedar Breaks and Natural Bridges national monuments, and the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area can open for up to ten days.
“Utah’s national parks are the backbone of many rural economies and hard-working Utahns are paying a heavy price for this shutdown,” Governor Gary Herbert said in announcing the agreement. “I commend Secretary Jewell for being open to Utah’s solution, and the world should know Utah is open for business and visitors are welcome.”
Under the terms of the deal, the Interior Department will notify site-specific personnel to return to work as soon as the state wires the money. Secretary Jewell indicated to the governor that within 24 hours of receiving wired funds, the national sites could be open and fully operational. At the time of this release, Utah expects parks to become fully operational by Saturday.
Utah’s initial funding for the agreement will come from existing resources within the Division of State Parks of the Department of Natural Resources. Further action may be warranted by the Utah State Legislature in a special session expected for next Wednesday, October 16. The Governor’s Office continues to work closely with legislative leaders to make DNR whole and identify optimal solutions. If the government shutdown continues beyond 10 days, Utah can make additional payments to keep the national parks and monuments open, a release from the governor's office said.
While Secretary Jewell made it clear to the governor that she cannot obligate the federal government for reimbursement to the State, the agreement stipulates repayment will be possible with approval from the U.S. Congress. Consequently, the governor has engaged Utah’s congressional delegation to actively pursue timely repayment to state coffers.
Elsewhere in the country, officials in Wyoming, California, and Washington state said they would not try to fund the reopening of national parks in their states.
Comments
Envy of what, exactly? The fact that their kids can play lacrosse but mine can't? Our local parks are owned and run by the cities and counties, so we're all good.
Envy of the higher median income and home value of the productive residents of McLean.
I live in a house that's paid off, have two vehicles that are paid off, and live in an upscale area. Do I live in an $800,000 house? No, but where I live, you can buy the same house for half the money. So, no monetary envy, either.
Do you believe that people with a lot of money and political influence can't, and don't, influence the courts?
I certainly won't claim it never happens as I am sure there are corrupt judges somewhere. But I have seen no evidence that this judge was on the take. Do you have any?
REF: Mclean/Langley Fork Park, I read the article and my take is this is another example of the NPS overzealously trying to comply with the Antideficiency Act.
It appears to me that since the park is maintained and managed by the local park authority that a strong case can be made that leaving this park open does not "obligate expeditures" by the federal goverment therefore the NPS had plenty of room under the Antideficienty Act to leave it open.
Yes, the group from Fairfax county had the funds and wherewithal to fight the action and get it rectified. But to make this simply a class issue is over-reaching.
Another point of view would be that the action of the "rich" parents in this case sets a tone to get the NPS to evaluate other closures they enforced in the shutdown rush, and provides motivation for them to rectify potentially unnecessary closures that occured in less advantaged communities as well.
I don't. I equate this with a judge giving celebrity or sports figure a lighter sentence than the average Joe would have received for the same offence. In this case, the judge didn't receive any direct pressure from the plaintiffs, but was affected by the political and business power carried by the plaintiffs, IMHO.
And on what basis do you reach that opinion? Where was the ruling in error?
Lets see Mclean Youth Soccer .....
The Boys' Commissioner is an unemployed dad, the girls' is a high school coach and the legal representative is a DC divorce lawyer. Gee the lives of the rich and powerful must have had that judge quaking in his boots.