At the height of the Great Depression, a plan was launched to create a massive national park unit in Southeastern Utah. Far surpassing Zion and Bryce Canyon to the west, It would have covered more than 6,000 square miles — more than Yellowstone, Yosemite, and Great Smoky Mountains National Parks combined.
It was to be called Escalante, named after the Spanish priest who first explored the region. From the view of the National Park Service, it was a red rock wilderness — almost entirely unknown, uninhabited, undeveloped, and best preserved before that reality could change. To the people of Utah, it was untapped potential.
These competing views of the landscape would ultimately result in the failure of the park campaign in Southeast Utah — and would set the stage for a century of controversy.
An invitation to the National Park Service
In the mid 1930s, as established national parks like Zion and Bryce grew in popularity and new landscapes like the Waterpocket Fold and Arches were eyed for preservation, the state of Utah recognized an incredible opportunity. Not only did national park units bring economic benefits in the form of tourism dollars, they also provided a case for investment by the federal government — particularly in infrastructure like modern roads.
At the zenith of the Great Depression, this is what prompted the Utah State Planning Board — an entity established to coordinate economic relief efforts with the federal government — to send a proposal to the National Park Service: Why not construct a new park-to-park highway, stretching from Mesa Verde National Park to the proposed Wayne Wonderland (future Capitol Reef)? The state of Utah would benefit from jobs and lasting tourism benefits, whereas the Park Service would benefit from increased visitation numbers — a win for both. It was a proven strategy. A similar partnership had already connected Cedar Breaks, Bryce Canyon, Zion, and the North Rim of the Grand Canyon.
While the NPS was lukewarm about this road construction project, it did see an opportunity to take a closer look at Southeast Utah’s rugged and relatively unknown scenic backcountry. In 1935, Grand Canyon National Park Superintendent Minor Tillotson engaged three expeditions — traveling by air, horse, and automobile — to survey the region. Over the course of the survey, Tillotson took in Glen Canyon, Rainbow Bridge, the Escalante River, and dozens of other resources of incredible scenic potential.
Disappointingly for the Utah State Planning Board, his survey did not result in the recommendation for a road — but rather a first proposal for a dramatically expanded National Park Service presence in the region. He suggested a massive withdrawal of 6,980 square miles stretching from the confluence of the Colorado and Green Rivers to the Waterpocket Fold to the Canyonlands Basin.
With the conservation-friendly Franklin D. Roosevelt in office, it was thought that an Antiquities Act proclamation would be the easiest way to preserve the dramatic geology of the region. It was dubbed Escalante National Monument — a name that would become coated with controversy from 1936 to the present.
Utah’s opposition
For NPS officials, the opportunity to set aside what Yellowstone Superintendent Roger Toll called “a great wilderness area” was extremely exciting. Toll and other NPS promoters made the mistake of assuming that others would share their enthusiasm.
On June 8, 1936, the National Park Service held a public meeting in the town of Price, Utah. The meeting was attended by more than 70 locals, representing those who were already living in the proposed monument and using its natural resources. Across the nearly 7,000 square miles, only around 400 families were scratching out a living raising around 160,000 sheep, cattle, and horses combined. Though this was a thin population for such an expansive region — which confirmed for the NPS that the best use of the landscape was preservation and tourism — representatives of ranching and grazing formed a vocal opposition.
This became especially true after the NPS opened the 1936 meeting with a major blunder — asserting that grazing and herding was already a dying industry in the region. The hackles of local ranchers were raised, transforming suspicion towards the NPS into animus that would plague the park process.
In addition to local opposition, the Park Service faced an uphill battle with top-level Utah politicians. Concerned about water rights, Utah governor Henry Blood took a stand against Escalante National Monument and mobilized Utah’s U.S. senators against it. With the completion of the Hoover Dam in Nevada, other locations along the Colorado River and its tributaries were being eyes for reservoirs. Blood was unwilling to risk the creation of a monument that could “lock up” rare water resources that could be developed for irrigation and hydropower.
Despite promises from the NPS that water development and cattle grazing rights would be maintained, the opposition of Utahns proved insurmountable. In an attempt at compromise, the NPS re-surveyed the region and in 1938 proposed a monument centered around the Green and Colorado Rivers. This skinny monument was much smaller, but still a whopping 2,450 square miles — 500 square miles larger than Grand Canyon National Park.
The legacy of the lost national park
Regardless of the downsize and promises to allow water development, Utahns remained opposed to the new park unit. Ultimately, the Park Service acted too ambitiously and with too high of a preservationist idealism, attempting to place a protective shield over a truly unprecedented amount of land. Unlike with parks in the western part of the state like Zion, the Park Service failed to positively engage the public on protecting a specific resource, such as a single geologic features or region.
In a last ditch effort, the NPS had legislation introduced in 1940 to create an Escalante National Recreation Area. Unlike a national monument or park, a recreation area offered a much lower level of landscape protection. Unfortunately, it was unable to overcome previous blunders by Park Service representatives that had insulted and alienated local Utahns.
The conflict over Southeast Utah’s scenic and natural resources has continued to play out over the course of the 20th and 21st centuries. Its finest geologic formations have been preserved as Canyonlands National Park and a recreation area was established was Lake Powell filled up behind Glen Canyon Dam. Much of the proposed 1936 monument is now Bears Ears National Monument — a landscape that has proven to be a centerpiece of the lasting duel between preservation and development on American public lands.
You must be logged in to post a comment.