Northern Arizona Protection Act
- Bill Number
- H.R. 5392
- Origin Chamber
- House
- Congress
- 119th Congress, Session 1
- Policy Area
- Native Americans
- Status
- Introduced
- Latest Action
- 2025-09-16: Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
- Last Updated
- 2025-11-13T09:05:20Z
AI-Generated Summary
Summary of H.R. 5392: Northern Arizona Protection Act
Purpose
This bill aims to cancel a presidential action that created a new national monument in northern Arizona and to prevent similar executive actions in the future without congressional approval. It specifically targets protections for lands important to Native American tribes and natural resources, while restoring access for activities like mining.
Key Provisions
- Nullification of Proclamation: The bill declares Presidential Proclamation 10606 (issued on August 8, 2023) to have no legal effect. This proclamation had established the Baaj Nwaavjo I'tah Kukveni-Ancestral Footprints of the Grand Canyon National Monument, covering about 1 million acres in Arizona, and withdrawn those lands from new mineral exploration and mining (known as "mineral entry").
- Restriction on Future Actions: No future creation, expansion, or establishment of national monuments in the same area—defined by a specific map dated August 5, 2023—can occur using executive authority. Any such changes must receive explicit approval from Congress.
Significant Changes to Existing Law
- The bill overrides the Antiquities Act of 1906, a law that allows the President to designate national monuments to protect historic, cultural, or natural sites without needing congressional consent. This is the first such legislative attempt to nullify a specific monument created under that act in this manner.
- It ends the land withdrawal under the proclamation, potentially reopening the area to mining leases and other resource extraction activities that were previously restricted.
Potential Impacts
- Government Agencies: The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and National Park Service (NPS), which manage federal lands, would lose authority over the monument's protections. This could shift land use back to multiple-use policies, allowing mining and grazing, but it might increase administrative burdens for processing new permits.
- Citizens: Local residents and businesses in northern Arizona, particularly those in mining and agriculture, could benefit from renewed economic opportunities. However, it may reduce tourism and recreational protections in the Grand Canyon region. Environmental safeguards against mining pollution or habitat disruption would be lifted, potentially affecting water quality and wildlife.
- International Relations: No direct impacts are outlined, though the monument's cultural significance to Native American tribes (with ties to ancient footprints and heritage sites) could indirectly influence U.S. commitments to indigenous rights under international agreements.
Main Stakeholders Affected
- Mining and Energy Industries: Companies like those involved in uranium or other mineral extraction gain the most, as the land withdrawal is reversed, potentially boosting jobs and revenue in Arizona.
- Native American Tribes: Tribes such as the Havasupai, Navajo, and Hopi, for whom the area holds ancestral and spiritual importance (reflected in the monument's name, meaning "Ancestral Footprints of the Grand Canyon" in tribal languages), may lose federal protections for sacred sites.
- Environmental and Conservation Groups: Organizations focused on preserving natural landscapes and biodiversity, such as the Sierra Club, would oppose the loss of monument status, which had aimed to protect ecosystems from development.
- Local Governments and Residents: Arizona communities near the Grand Canyon could see economic trade-offs between resource extraction and eco-tourism.
- Federal Government Branches: Congress asserts greater control over land designations, challenging executive power.
Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications
- Legal: By nullifying the proclamation, the bill tests the limits of the Antiquities Act, potentially setting a precedent for Congress to override presidential land protections. If passed, it could face court challenges from tribes or environmentalists claiming violations of treaty rights or administrative law.
- Constitutional: It highlights tensions between separation of powers—Congress's authority over public lands (Article IV) versus the President's executive discretion under statutes like the Antiquities Act. This could spark debates on federalism, as states like Arizona seek more control over their lands.
- Political: Introduced by Republican representatives from Western states, the bill reflects partisan divides on public land use, with supporters emphasizing economic development and critics viewing it as undermining conservation efforts. Passage would require navigating committee reviews and possible Senate filibusters, amid broader debates on climate and indigenous sovereignty.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.
Sponsor
Cosponsors (6)
Rep. Crane, Elijah [R-AZ-2], Rep. Hageman, Harriet M. [R-WY-At Large], Rep. Newhouse, Dan [R-WA-4], Rep. Biggs, Andy [R-AZ-5], Rep. Fulcher, Russ [R-ID-1], Rep. Boebert, Lauren [R-CO-4]
Recent Actions
- 2025-09-16: Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
- 2025-09-16: Introduced in House
- 2025-09-16: Introduced in House
Bill Versions
- Northern Arizona Protection Act — issued 2025-09-16 — PDF (2 pages)