Overview
Title
To prohibit the use of funds by the Secretary of the Interior to finalize and implement certain travel management plans in the State of Utah.
ELI5 AI
S. 90 is a bill that stops the government from spending money to change or create rules about driving on certain roads in Utah while some important court cases are still going on, so that these old roads can stay the same for now.
Summary AI
S. 90, also known as the "Historic Roadways Protection Act," aims to prevent the Secretary of the Interior from using federal funds to finalize or implement new or existing travel management plans in certain areas of Utah until all specified court cases regarding road rights under R.S. 2477 are resolved. The bill identifies specific travel management areas, including the Henry Mountains, Dinosaur, Book Cliffs, Nine Mile Canyon, and others, and restricts funds for planning activities in these regions to protect historical roadways during ongoing legal disputes.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
Summary of the Bill
The proposed legislation, titled the "Historic Roadways Protection Act," aims to restrict the Secretary of the Interior from using federal funds to finalize and implement certain travel management plans in the State of Utah. The bill specifically targets a list of travel management areas and ties the implementation restriction to the unresolved legal cases commonly referred to as R.S. 2477 cases. These cases involve disputes over the control and management of roadways on public lands. Until all related cases are adjudicated, the Secretary of the Interior cannot make progress on new travel management plans for these specified areas.
Significant Issues
One of the main concerns with the bill is its broad restriction on the use of funds for implementing travel management plans. This broad stroke approach may hinder not only administrative processes but also the maintenance and execution of potentially beneficial projects critical to effective land management. Furthermore, the extensive list of affected areas could result in administrative complexities, leading to confusion over which travel management areas are impacted.
Another significant issue is the reliance on the resolution of numerous R.S. 2477 cases to determine the timeframe of these restrictions. Since the outcome of these legal proceedings is uncertain and could take a long time, the resultant delay adds an element of indefinite suspension, potentially affecting the provision of services and updates to the travel plans.
Additionally, the bill makes no provisions for emergencies or necessary updates to travel management plans during the undefined "applicable period." This oversight might risk public safety and the ability to respond flexibly to dynamic circumstances requiring immediate intervention.
Impact on the Public
For the general public, particularly those living in Utah, the bill could result in delays and inefficiencies in managing public lands and roadways. This could have direct implications for environmental conservation, local recreational opportunities, and tourism, as well as for residents who depend on these roads for access and transportation.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
Regarding specific stakeholders, local governments and communities may encounter challenges in coordinating with federal agencies due to the administrative burden of managing and navigating the imposed restrictions. Moreover, stakeholders invested in the environmental aspects and preservation of these travel areas could see both positive and negative outcomes. On the one hand, lessened interference might allow for more natural preservation; on the other hand, a lack of active management might lead to degradation or misuse of these lands.
For legal professionals and entities involved in the R.S. 2477 cases, this legislation underscores the importance of these adjudications as it directly ties significant policy and administrative actions to their resolution. Stakeholders in this legal area will be keenly interested in the progression and outcomes of said cases, as it affects the operational boundaries regarding federal land management policies.
Overall, the bill has complex implications that merit careful consideration regarding land use, legal adjudication, and public interest management within affected regions.
Issues
The prohibition on the use of funds to finalize and implement travel management plans, as outlined in Section 2, is overly broad and may impede vital projects without a clear rationale. This could result in delays and inefficiencies in land management, which are of significant public interest due to potential impacts on the environment and local economies.
The extensive list of 'covered travel management areas' in Section 2 could cause administrative challenges, leading to confusion over which specific areas are affected. This complexity might hinder effective implementation and enforcement of the legislation, impacting stakeholders including local communities and governmental agencies.
The reliance on the adjudication of numerous R.S. 2477 cases to define the 'applicable period' in Section 2 introduces uncertainty, as these legal proceedings could take an indeterminate amount of time, potentially leaving the prohibition in effect longer than necessary and affecting clarity in policy implementation.
The bill's language, prohibiting the use of funds for travel management plans, does not make allowances for emergencies or necessary updates during the unspecified 'applicable period.' This oversight, detailed in Section 2, could result in inflexibility that affects public safety and resource management.
The definition of an 'R.S. 2477 case' in Section 2 relies on specific lawsuits without broader context, potentially creating ambiguity and a lack of understanding for stakeholders unfamiliar with these legal matters, thus affecting transparent communication and public awareness of the law's implications.
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The first section of this Act states that the short title of the legislation is the “Historic Roadways Protection Act.”
2. Prohibition on use of use of funds to finalize and implement certain travel management plans in the State of Utah Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section prohibits the Secretary of the Interior from spending federal funds to finalize or implement new travel management plans in specific areas of Utah, as well as implementing certain existing travel management plans, until all related court cases known as R.S. 2477 cases are resolved. The areas affected include various travel management areas like the Henry Mountains, Dinosaur North, and San Rafael Swell, among others.