Utah News Dispatch

The U.S. Department of Food and Agriculture recently announced it would try to roll back the “roadless rule,” a decades-old policy that prevents road construction and logging on nearly 4 million acres of national forest in Utah. 

Brooke Rollins, the department’s secretary, called the rule “overly restrictive” and an “absurd obstacle” to forest management when she made the announcement during a Western Governors’ Association meeting in New Mexico. The rule, she said, prohibits agencies from properly managing forests and preventing wildfire, while stifling the timber industry. 

Utah leaders celebrated the decision, with House Speaker Mike Schultz, R-Hooper, calling it a “big win” for the state. 

But in Utah, proponents of the rule say it’s a vital tool for protecting the state’s forests, which in turn keep water clean, provide habitat for wildlife and allow recreation opportunities. 

“This rule protects almost half of the forest service land in Utah,” said Kate Groetzinger, communications director for the Center for Western Priorities. “This opens about half of Utah’s forest land to logging that has been previously protected. That can drastically change the feel of some of our most popular forests.” 

The scope of the roadless rule in Utah

The roadless rule was established during the Clinton administration in 2001 and restricts road construction and reconstruction, and timber harvests, on roughly 58.5 million acres of the country’s national forests and grasslands. The goal, according to the forest service, “is to provide lasting protection” on some of the country’s most remote areas.  

Called inventoried roadless areas, the forest service created boundaries around roads and existing infrastructure to identify stretches of forest eligible for more stringent protection. Inventoried roadless areas are typically sorted into two categories — places where road construction or reconstruction is allowed, and places where it isn’t allowed. 

There are roadless areas along the Wasatch Front, in places like Big, Little, Millcreek and American Fork canyons; in vast sections of the Uinta Mountains; in southern Utah, near Moab and Monticello. They can be recreation hotspots, with some of the state’s most popular hiking trails on or near roadless areas.  

Utah has roughly 8.1 million acres of national forest, according to the federal government, spread out across eight regions — Ashley, Caribou, Dixie, Fishlake, Manti-La Sal, Sawtooth, Uinta and Wasatch-Cache national forests. 

According to forest service data, about 4 million acres is inventoried roadless area — road construction and reconstruction is allowed on about 3.5 million acres, and prohibited on the remaining 446,000 acres. 

But according to Tim Peterson, the cultural landscapes director for Grand Canyon Trust, the distinction can be misleading. 

“We haven’t built a lot of new roads in our national forests over the last two to three decades,” said Peterson, who’s been involved in Utah’s roadless areas since the 1990s and helped conduct inventories for environmental groups. “Road building is so expensive and the forest service already has a maintenance backlog … we can’t even maintain the roads that we have, let alone build new roads.” 

Regardless of whether new road construction is or isn’t allowed, the rule generally prohibits timber harvesting in covered areas. There are exceptions, Peterson said, including mechanical thinning, removing trees killed by insects, or for fighting fire. 

In an email, Redge Johnson, the director of the Utah Public Land Policy Coordinating Office, acknowledged the exceptions, but said the state is still confined in its ability to manage forests to improve habitat and reduce fire danger.

“While the roadless rule allows for limited timber harvest it has so many restrictions it makes it nearly impossible for timber projects to be completed,” Johnson said. “Our forests are overgrown and unhealthy, it is past time that we start to actively manage our national forests.” 

Johnson shared a picture with Utah News Dispatch that he took while on a recent horsepacking trip through the Manti-La Sal National Forest, that shows an entire ridge with mostly dead coniferous trees. 

“Even though there are old logging roads on the ridge shown, we can not use them to remove the dead timber due to the restrictions from the roadless rule. Removing this dead timber would reduce wildfire risk, increase wildlife habitat and protect our watersheds,” Johnson said. 

What to expect if the roadless rule is rescinded

Assuming the administration is able to scale back the rule, there would be 4 million extra acres of forest service land in Utah that would be open for timber harvesting — the state says that would allow for increased wildfire mitigation and forest management. 

“We are excited with this new direction by the United States Department of Agriculture,  allowing the federal government, state partners and industry to address a variety of forest health and ecosystem services issues, like water quality/quantity, wildlife, forage and air quality,” said Johnson. “We are looking forward to engaging with the Trump Administration, USDA, and the Forest Service to promote healthy, diverse and productive forests here in Utah and across the country.” 

Rollins, in a recent op-ed for the Deseret News, said to date about 8 million acres of roadless forest around the country have burned in wildfire, and rescinding the rule would free up forest managers who she argues are constrained by the rule. 

The USDA also said rescinding the rule will help boost the state’s economy. 

“Utah alone estimates the roadless rule alone creates a 25% decrease in economic development in the forestry sector,” reads a press release from the department. 

Advocates for the rule, however, are skeptical. According to an analysis from the forest service, the roadless rule has led to an estimated reduction of just 59 jobs related to timber harvesting in Utah and Peterson said the logging industry in the state was never that robust to begin with.  

“There has never really been a huge timber industry in Utah,” he said, “and getting rid of the roadless area rule would not make for a big timber industry in Utah, because roads are so expensive to build.” 

If the forest service is serious about expanding timber harvesting, he said, it’s going to need a bigger budget. The agency’s deferred maintenance backlog for roads and bridges was estimated at $4.4 billion in 2022 and the president’s budget proposal would slash millions from forest service operations. 

“If we’re going to be building roads and doing timber sales, it’s not reflected in the budget that the administration has put forward to Congress,” Peterson said.

---

See more stories like this and all of our city watch coverage. And while you’re here, why not subscribe and get six annual issues of Salt Lake magazine’s curated guide to the best of life in Utah

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Kyle Dunphey covers politics, public safety and the environment for Utah News Dispatch. He was named Best Newspaper Reporter by the Utah Society of Professional Journalists in 2023 for his work on crime and immigration at the Deseret News.

Public outcry was swift and forceful after a U.S. House committee last month hastily approved an amendment directing the federal government to sell off more than half a million acres of public land.

A few days later, lawmakers advanced the larger bill — a sweeping list of President Donald Trump’s priorities — but stripped the federal lands provision.

Yet leaders on both sides of the issue say the battle over selling off federal lands is likely just heating up.

Some conservatives in Western states have complained for decades that the feds control too much of the land within their borders. They see a long-awaited opportunity in a Trump administration that’s sympathetic to their cause. Public lands advocates are bracing for more attempts to turn land over to states, industry groups and developers.

“The threat level is red alert,” said Randi Spivak, public lands policy director with the Center for Biological Diversity, an environmental nonprofit. “Some of these states have been champing at the bit for decades to privatize. They’re certainly not going to let this opportunity pass without an aggressive effort.”

The ‘balance sheet’

In Western states, where most federally owned lands are located, some leaders view these lands as a treasured inheritance — places reserved for all Americans and critical for wildlife, tourism and outdoor recreation. Others feel that too much of the land in their states is controlled by officials in Washington, D.C., leaving it off-limits for development and curtailing its economic value.

Some of these states have been champing at the bit for decades to privatize. They’re certainly not going to let this opportunity pass without an aggressive effort.

Trump officials and allies have embraced the latter view. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum has repeatedly called federal lands America’s “balance sheet,” describing them as untapped assets worth trillions of dollars. He has launched an effort to identify federal lands suitable for housing development.

Other proposals have centered around using land sales to pay for tax breaks or to finance Trump’s proposed government-run fund that could invest in stocks or real estate.

For some state leaders, the newfound interest at the federal level to turn public lands into cash — along with Trump’s cuts to land management agency staff — aligns with a long-standing movement to reduce federal ownership.

“I look at it as an opportunity to say, ‘Hey, turn it over to the state,’” said Utah House Speaker Mike Schultz, a Republican.

Utah leaders have made the most forceful push to challenge federal land ownership. The state filed a legal challenge last year seeking to take control of more than 18 million acres of “unappropriated” lands — parcels held by the federal government without a specific designation such as a national park or monument. That effort hit a roadblock earlier this year when the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case.

But with Trump in the White House, state leaders may pivot from challenging the feds in court to seeking their cooperation.

“We would love if the federal government just turned it over to us and said, ‘Here, manage these lands,’” Schultz said. “That’s an option as well. Those are discussions that are happening. Everything is on the table.”

Schultz declined to say which federal officials have been involved in discussions about transferring lands to the state.

Some lawmakers in Wyoming backed a state resolution this year — which ultimately failed — calling on Congress to hand over all federal lands except for Yellowstone National Park. Idaho lawmakers passed a measure calling on the feds to turn over a wildlife refuge to the state. And Nevada Gov. Joe Lombardo, a Republican, has called for a “systematic release” of federal land in the state.

But public lands also have many supporters in Western states, including some prominent Republican members of Congress, such as Reps. Mike Simpson of Idaho and Ryan Zinke of Montana. Zinke was Interior secretary for two years during the first Trump administration.

John Leshy, who served as solicitor for the U.S. Department of the Interior during the Clinton administration, said proposals to dispose of federal lands tend to be stymied by fierce public backlash.

“Federal lands are really popular,” he said. “It’s political poison [to sell off public land]. It’s a different West now. Public attitudes have changed.”

Leshy also noted that livestock ranchers especially benefit from discounted lease rates offered by the federal government.

This story was republished from Utah News Dispatch, read the entire piece here.

---

See more stories like this and all of our City Watch coverage. And while you’re here, why not subscribe and get six annual issues of Salt Lake magazine’s curated guide to the best of life in Utah?

About the Authors

Utah is set to become the first state in the nation to ban fluoride in drinking water, with a new law taking effect later this week, on Wednesday.

That day, the fluoride taps will turn off, if they haven’t already. While Davis and Salt Lake counties, and Brigham City, are the only governments that still add fluoride to drinking water, roughly half of the state’s population lives there.  

Sponsored by Rep. Stephanie Gricius, R-Eagle Mountain, HB81 prevents counties and municipalities from adding fluoride to drinking water, while adding it to the list of drugs pharmacists can prescribe. 

The reasoning, Gricius said, is that the decision should be left to the individual. 

“I would just say it doesn’t get more local control than my own body,” she said during the legislative session earlier this year.

Gricius’ bill was one of several that aligned with the “Make America Healthy Again,” or MAHA, agenda promoted by U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who praised the law earlier this year. 

Now, for health officials like Stacey Bank, executive medical director for the Utah Department of Health and Human Services, the focus is on educating the public and reminding them that fluoride is now readily available at most pharmacies. 

“I’m grateful for the opportunity to have this conversation. We haven’t talked about oral health and fluoride this much in my career as long as I can remember. This is an opportunity to get the message out to the entire state,” she said on Friday. “I know it’s not always easy to get into a doctor or dentist, there are barriers there. Going to your local pharmacist, talking to the person behind the counter, is enough to take care of your teeth.”

There are currently 25 water systems serving about 1.6 million people spread out across Davis and Salt Lake counties, and Brigham City, that add fluoride to the water. Brigham City has been adding fluoride to the water since the 1960s; Davis County started in 1999; and Salt Lake County in 2003. 

Some treatment plants have already stopped adding fluoride to the water, including a handful in Davis County, and Salt Lake County’s City Creek Water Treatment Plant. 

If Utahns don’t act, expect tooth decay, officials say

“If I was looking into a crystal ball, we’re going to see a decline in oral health if our community doesn’t take action, and now go to their dentist and talk about what’s best for them and receive their supplements. If that happens, I don’t think we’ll see much of a change,” said Brian Hatch, director of the Davis County Health Department. 

In Salt Lake County, where the water has been fluoridated for almost two decades, health officials say they’re losing an effective public health tool.  

“From a public health standpoint, we know that community water fluoridation is the best way to benefit individuals and the overall community’s oral health,” added Ron Lund, environmental health director for the Salt Lake County Health Department. “It’s the most efficient and effective way to do that for people who cannot afford or may not be able to go to routine dental visits.” 

But while health officials say it’s possible they’ll see an uptick in cavities in regions currently fluoridating their water, others see the bill as an opportunity. Most of rural Utah has already stopped adding the mineral to the public water supply. 

Fluoride is a hot topic now, and with the May 7 deadline approaching, it gives public health experts a chance to educate communities, they say.

“It’s an opportunity for our more rural communities. Other than Brigham City, none of our rural communities have been adding fluoride to the water. So this is bringing more attention to how important fluoride is and giving them access to get it, that they may not have known they needed,” said State Dental Director Stacey Swilling.

This story was republished from Utah News Dispatch, read the entire piece here.

---

See more stories like this and all of our city watch coverage. And while you’re here, why not subscribe and get six annual issues of Salt Lake magazine’s curated guide to the best of life in Utah?

U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said he’s proud of Utah’s push to eliminate fluoride from drinking water, telling reporters he hopes other states follow suit. 

Kennedy spoke to a crowded room of journalists, lawmakers and health officials on Monday, part of a tour of Western states to promote his “Make America Healthy Again” agenda, known as MAHA. 

“If we want to be a moral nation, if we want to maintain our moral authority around the world, our chief obligation is to our children. And we’re letting them down. And I’m very, very happy that Utah is taking the lead in so many ways,” Kennedy said on Monday. “It makes no sense to have fluoride in our water. The evidence against fluoride is overwhelming … we know that it causes I.Q. loss.” 

Fluoride is a mineral that has been shown to strengthen teeth by replacing minerals that are lost from acid breakdown, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. A recent report from the National Toxicology Program found that high levels of fluoride in drinking water can be associated with a lower I.Q. in children — but according to the report, those levels are twice as high as the current recommended amount of fluoride. 

Kennedy spoke to several bills that align with the MAHA agenda, mostly focusing on HB81, the fluoride bill. Sponsored by Rep. Stephanie Gricius, R-Eagle Mountain, the bill prohibits municipalities from adding fluoride to drinking water, while adding it to the list of drugs that pharmacists can prescribe. 

Utah House Speaker Mike Schultz said that’s a “win-win” situation. 

“We want to make sure those options are there” for Utahns who want more fluoride than what’s available in toothpaste or mouthwash, said Schultz, R-Hooper, who spoke during Monday’s press conference. 

The bill received pushback from dentists and other health professionals, who say adding fluoride to drinking water has resulted in less cavities among children. That includes Dr. Sarah Woolsey, a family physician who told lawmakers during a legislative committee meeting that she saw a decrease in referrals for cavity extractions under anesthesia after Salt Lake County started to add fluoride to its water.

“Despite my efforts in education, in prescribing fluoride and working with parents, the voluntary application does not always work for those that may be most vulnerable,” said Woolsey. “And I would like to say that since fluoride has been in the water, the number of kids I send (to have teeth extracted) is significantly less.” 

The bill passed mostly along party lines, with a handful of Republicans joining Democrats in opposition. It was signed by the governor on March 27, and takes effect on May 7. 

After the press conference on Monday, Kennedy told the Associated Press he will instruct the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to stop recommending state and local governments add fluoride to drinking water. He also told the Associated Press he will set up a task force to look into the issue. 

Lee Zeldin, a former GOP congressman and the current head of the Environmental Protection Agency, said the agency is going to review all the fluoride-related studies that came out since the National Toxicology Program report in 2024.     

“We’re prepared to act based on this science,” said Zeldin, who also spoke during the event on Monday. “Both the National Toxicology Program study, as well as other peer-reviewed studies. If this is as important as it is to Secretary Kennedy, if it’s important as it is, clearly to so many people who are here in this room and at this press conference today, then it is top of the list for the Environmental Protection Agency.” 

Kennedy suggested Gricius’ bill could be a model for other states. 

“I’m very, very proud of this state for being the first state to ban (fluoride). I hope many more will come,” he said on Monday, echoing the argument from Utah lawmakers this session — that it’s an issue of bodily autonomy and freedom of choice.

This story was republished from Utah News Dispatch, read the entire piece here.

---

See more stories like this and all of our city watch coverage. And while you’re here, why not subscribe and get six annual issues of Salt Lake magazine’s curated guide to the best of life in Utah?