Zornio: The new Trump administration could have huge impacts on public lands. Here’s how that might play out

With the reality of big political change inching closer, I reached out to University of Colorado Denver Professor Deserai Anderson Crow in the School of Public Affairs to get her thoughts on the fate of public lands, community resilience and the trajectory of science amid the incoming Trump administration. Below are her responses.

Zornio: Dr. Anderson Crow, thank you for offering your expertise. To jump right in, you’ve shared concerns about public lands possibly being sold off with the incoming Trump administration. Can you tell us more about what those concerns are and where they stem from?

Anderson Crow: Conservative states have long argued that federal ownership of lands without active management (includes National Parks or National Monuments) is an overreach and curtails states rights. This argument hasn’t traditionally captured widespread support because while this argument originates from western states, the American West is also very proud of our public lands and view them as indispensable to our quality of life, natural beauty and economies.

Because of our political climate over the past decade, however, this argument has gained more traction. This year in August, Utah filed a lawsuit challenging federal control over public lands. The state has asked the Supreme Court to decide this case and given the makeup of the court, this could be a sea change in how the U.S. manages public lands.”

Zornio: And if the Supreme Court sides with Utah, then what?

Anderson Crow: Essentially, millions of acres of passively managed public lands will potentially be ceded to states, and conservative states have openly stated that they will sell and develop much of the land. So our public lands in the U.S., particularly in the West, could be radically changed. Combined with the fact that the incoming presidential administration does not differ from the Utah position, there is unlikely to be a backstop to prevent this from happening if the Supreme Court sides with Utah. In fact, Trump’s nominee for Secretary of the Interior, the agency that manages many of the public lands across the country (the primary exception being U.S. Forests), is Gov. Doug Burgum from North Dakota. North Dakota (along with Alaska, Arizona, Alabama, Arkansas, Idaho, Mississippi, Nebraska, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas and Wyoming) has officially supported the Utah lawsuit. Much of this support comes from the desire to develop oil and gas resources on public lands and Gov. Burgum has deep ties to the industry that seeks to do this.

Zornio: Are you concerned about any specific public lands in Colorado being sold off, and if so, is there anything Coloradans can do to help prevent this from happening?

Anderson Crow: Not at all! In Colorado, we are incredibly lucky. We were the first state in the nation to establish a state holiday to celebrate public lands in 2016 (the third Saturday in May each year is Colorado Public Lands Day!). You can see from the list of states above that support Utah’s lawsuit that this is a very ideologically polarized issue and Colorado’s state government actively prevents this from happening. Most importantly, if the court sides with Utah, states will be able to force the sale of federal lands, but Colorado would not likely do this. However, I will also point out that in a handful of states like Colorado and Montana, the protection of public lands is not as controversial or ideological. Our tourism and recreation economies and the demand for public lands as part of our Colorado way of life means that Coloradans widely support preserving public lands regardless of political affiliation.

Zornio: You’ve also expressed concerns about resilience for disasters, specifically wildfires. Can you tell us more about how you think the incoming administration will impact disaster preparedness and mitigation, and what this looks like in Colorado?

Anderson Crow: There are two areas where I worry about federal government funding and policy related to disasters as the Trump Administration comes into office. First, we have never seen disaster response and recovery funding used as a political tool as we have starting in the first Trump Administration. Trump notably held up disaster relief to California after catastrophic wildfires because he was in a dispute with California’s Democratic governor. We have also seen Congress prevent disaster relief funds to be renewed for this fall’s hurricanes in the southeast. Given that the president must sign a disaster declaration at the request of the state’s governor in order to release federal funds and support after a disaster, this politicization of disasters is worrisome and could potentially affect millions of Americans.

Second, Colorado is a leader in working toward greater resilience across the state so that we are not constantly just responding and being reactive, but instead are working ahead to reduce known risks and make disasters less likely. Most states do not have state-level offices like the Colorado Resiliency Office that work to support communities in doing such forward-looking work. If the federal government cuts budgets to agencies under the Department of the Interior or the Department of Agriculture (where the Forest Service is located), this will change the amount of funding available to do this prevention work. Instead, we will be back to the mode of always being reactive.

Zornio: Many people are concerned the Environmental Protection Agency might be defunded in part or in full. Are these concerns valid, and if so, will this impact key EPA issues in Colorado such as regulation of air quality?

Anderson Crow: I expect there will be a couple of key fights focused on environmental protection. One will be related to whether the Trump Administration refuses to spend money that Congress has previously appropriated to purposes like pollution prevention and cleanup at the EPA. If the administration refuses to execute policies that Congress passed, this will most certainly end up with the Supreme Court because it would be a violation of the constitutional powers of each branch of government. However, in the meantime as lawsuits play out, a lot of damage could be done and the EPA’s role in pollution prevention, monitoring and cleanup, Americans could feel the effects of this if compliance with pollution control laws are not enforced as they have been in the past. I think more likely than “defunding” the EPA is my second concern, which is that the Trump Administration will quickly move to revise regulations that are already in place, effectively loosening regulations and making energy development and other industrial activities easier to permit with less oversight.

Zornio: Are there steps Colorado leaders can take to help mitigate some of the impacts you’ve discussed above?

Anderson Crow: I am not concerned with Colorado’s political will to protect our environment and human health because our leaders have worked to establish a very active environmental protection policy agenda. That said, if the federal government cuts back on spending related to these initiatives, the states will need to backfill these funds in order to maintain the same level of protection. In Colorado, the thing I am most worried about is whether the state would be able to backfill those funds because of the constraints that TABOR places on state revenue.

Zornio: Switching gears, as an academic, are you concerned about the trajectory of the public’s perception of scientists?

Anderson Crow: Absolutely! In the first Trump Administration, millions of pages of climate data were removed from the EPA’s website, just as one example. Knowledge is power and the environmental movement and increased protection of environmental and human health arose in the U.S. and globally as our understanding of the effects of various pollutants and development have. It’s because of this role of science and knowledge that a number of environmental laws specifically focus on data sharing such as the EPA regulation of toxic releases, which allows anyone to go to the EPA website and see what pollutants are in the area where you live. By impinging on this data transparency and cutting the budgets of the National Science Foundation, National Institutes of Health, and the Earth-monitoring capacity of NASA, the Trump Administration could do massive harm to science, which means damage to our understanding of our planet and all of its related functions.

Learn more about Dr. Anderson Crow’s research and expertise

Trish Zornio is a scientist, lecturer and writer who has worked at some of the nation’s top universities and hospitals. She’s an avid rock climber and was a 2020 candidate for the U.S. Senate in Colorado. Trish can be found on Twitter @trish_zornio

The Colorado Sun is a nonpartisan news organization, and the opinions of columnists and editorial writers do not reflect the opinions of the newsroom. Read our ethics policy for more on The Sun’s opinion policy. Learn how to submit a column. Reach the opinion editor at opinion@coloradosun.com.

Follow Colorado Sun Opinion on Facebook.