Are the eight states that make up the Rocky Mountain West lacking in “sovereignty” and merely an inland colony of the rest of the nation?
That question arose a year ago during Colorado College’s first State of the Rockies Conference and in the college’s 2004 State of the Rockies Report Card.
The just-released 2005 report card looked into that question and researched the conditions in the region that credence to that concern.
Let’s be clear: The traditional sovereignty of a nation is not what people somewhat imprecisely speak of when talking about the Rockies. Only in the case of Native American nations can such independence from much federal, state and local legislation hold true. Rather, folks are referring largely to lack of participatory management for the Rockies. And, absent regional control over the region’s land, politics, and economy, Westerners do not dictate the region’s destiny.
The harsh truth, according to Ed Marston, former editor of The High Country News, is that: “We live as Southerners did during Reconstruction, occupied by an often federal force, and for many of the same dismal reasons.”
The Rockies region plays a complex dual role for the nation, first laying out the welcome mat while serving as host for a nation seeking resources, recreation, climate and environment. At the same time, it serves as a doormat upon which the nation wipes its proverbial feet, leaving behind a scarred landscape, fouled air, congestion, struggling communities and under-maintained facilities.
How we approach the problem of regional sovereignty depends in part on how we define the region. From a purely geographical and statistical perspective, the Rockies region contains eight states and 280 counties, 863,242 square miles, 24 percent of the nation’s land mass and 6.5 percent of the nation’s people. It is highly urban, with only 1.4 percent of the land developed. It is growing at three times the national rate and has residents who are younger, more mobile and better educated than elsewhere.
Despite the region’s great geographic variety, several characteristics of the land give us common destiny: low population density (0.52 per square mile); aridity (first highlighted by adventurer John Wesley Powell for its influence on all aspects of Western development) and public ownership of the Rockies (46 percent of land).
This reality of ownership is at the center of the debate over regional sovereignty.
The massive federal land base gives the government extraordinary political power. We too often watch passively as professional resource managers within the federal government craft policies to suit the needs of “their” lands. Though locals consistently complain of being powerless to make decisions in their own communities, they don’t often ask that federal subsidies be halted. We are largely addicted to a wide array of government programs and subsidies, making it difficult to be fully independent. Washington’s pen can lift communities to boom or leave them to bust.
Despite differing opinions on the degree and timing of federal ownership of and intervention in the Rockies, the consequence of such a long-standing federal dependence on local leadership is clear to some. In his book “Community and the Politics of Place,” Daniel Kemmis, former minority leader and speaker of the Montana House, describes an atomized, self-serving political landscape in the West. Deference to federal power has left the Rockies politically immature, ill prepared to make difficult choices.
Like the rest of the nation, we Westerners are not consistent in our opposition to centralized control over public lands. Some residents of Colorado and elsewhere who are often branded “environmentalists” do not trust local and regional citizens to use “the people’s” resources wisely, and call for tighter federal oversight. Such views raise hackles in rural communities with high unemployment rates and different values.
The West’s national treasures are simply too valuable, says environmental historian Donald Worster, for rural areas to be burdened with the full responsibility for their protection. “There must be a continuing federal role in the West to safeguard what local people cannot safeguard effectively.”
The polar opposite position among “wise-use” advocates calls for devolution of control over federal lands to local communities. Caught in the middle is the health and productivity of prime federal lands. But even this position is often compromised: Those who one day call for regional sovereignty the next day plead for federal regulation and subsidy.
Despite, or perhaps because of, conditions that limit our sovereignty and make us partly an inland colony, we’ve detected encouraging signs that our region is maturing and coming together:
We are learning to fend off outside forces and managers, instead conducting a wide range of experiments in consensual politics;
Ranchers, environmentalists, military leaders and developers are using conservation easements to protect watersheds and open space;
Rural counties, metropolitan utilities, Native American nations, farmers and recreational users are brokering water deals that address the region’s long-term needs; and
Student activists are joining with politicians and energy companies to expand the availability of renewable energy to consumers.
This increasing willingness of Westerners to assume risk and responsibility together suggests that the spirit of cooperation and the “missing middle” of Western politics are emerging.
Sovereignty and other topics – sprawl, the Toxic Rockies, energy futures, national parks under stress, civic engagement and capacity, creative occupations and Native American sovereignty are all examined in depth in the 2005 Colorado College State of the Rockies Report Card. The report and recent conference are parts of the college’s Rockies Project that each year focuses undergraduate student research, publication and conference discussion on challenges, problems and successes around the region.
For more information on the report card, go to www. coloradocollege.edu/stateoftherockies.
