Speakers say federal shutdowns and national park closures hurt rural Utah economies; state has paid to keep parks open
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
Several speakers during a public comment period said federal government shutdowns that close national parks have a direct, harmful effect on rural Utah economies and urged state-level responses.
"My heart breaks for those people in rural Utah," said Resident, referring to communities that depend on tourism from national parks. "When those national parks shut down and the federal government shuts down, it crushes those local economies."
Speakers stressed that Utah has at times stepped in to keep parks open during shutdowns. A commenter noted that in 2013 the state paid more than $1 million to keep the state's "Mighty 5" national parks open, with an expectation of federal reimbursement that the commenter said had not been received 12 years later. The same commenter said the state spent about $66,000 during the 2018 shutdown to maintain access at some parks.
"We Utahans are now paying twice," said State legislator, who identified themself as a legislator and said they had voted to support emergency funding to keep parks open. The legislator added they are working with other lawmakers on a national federalism initiative to give states a stronger voice and to shift some responsibilities to state control when the federal legislative branch is unable to act.
Speakers framed the issue both as an economic one—rural communities relying on park visitors—and a representational one. One commenter urged that redistricting should ensure both rural and urban representation in Congress so rural Utah is not overlooked.
Concerns about safety were raised in tandem with access: one commenter said limited staffing during shutdowns can leave parks open but with fewer personnel to manage visitor behavior, increasing risk that visitors "could come in there and tromp around and do things that they're not supposed to do."
No formal motion or vote on park funding or redistricting was recorded during the remarks. The statements reported here were part of the meeting's public comment period and reflect the speakers' perspectives and recollections about past state expenditures and ongoing policy preferences.
"My heart breaks for those people in rural Utah," said Resident, referring to communities that depend on tourism from national parks. "When those national parks shut down and the federal government shuts down, it crushes those local economies."
Speakers stressed that Utah has at times stepped in to keep parks open during shutdowns. A commenter noted that in 2013 the state paid more than $1 million to keep the state's "Mighty 5" national parks open, with an expectation of federal reimbursement that the commenter said had not been received 12 years later. The same commenter said the state spent about $66,000 during the 2018 shutdown to maintain access at some parks.
"We Utahans are now paying twice," said State legislator, who identified themself as a legislator and said they had voted to support emergency funding to keep parks open. The legislator added they are working with other lawmakers on a national federalism initiative to give states a stronger voice and to shift some responsibilities to state control when the federal legislative branch is unable to act.
Speakers framed the issue both as an economic one—rural communities relying on park visitors—and a representational one. One commenter urged that redistricting should ensure both rural and urban representation in Congress so rural Utah is not overlooked.
Concerns about safety were raised in tandem with access: one commenter said limited staffing during shutdowns can leave parks open but with fewer personnel to manage visitor behavior, increasing risk that visitors "could come in there and tromp around and do things that they're not supposed to do."
No formal motion or vote on park funding or redistricting was recorded during the remarks. The statements reported here were part of the meeting's public comment period and reflect the speakers' perspectives and recollections about past state expenditures and ongoing policy preferences.
View full meeting
This article is based on a recent meeting—watch the full video and explore the complete transcript for deeper insights into the discussion.
View full meeting