During the 2022 legislative session, Lyman served on the Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Environmental Quality Appropriations Subcommittee; House Government Operations Committee; House Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Environment Committee; and Legislative Water Development Commission.[2]
By profession, Lyman is a Certified Public Accountant and has been active in the business community in Blanding and the surrounding region. He earned a B.S. in Accounting from Brigham Young University as well as a M.S. in Accounting from the University of Utah. He is married to Jody Shumway Lyman and they have five children. Lyman is a member of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and has worked as an AICPA Personal Financial Specialist. Serving as the San Juan County Commissioner from 2011 to 2018, Lyman was voted Commissioner of the year by Utah Association of Counties. Lyman has served as Charter President of the Rotary Club of Blanding, Utah.[5]
Political career
As a San Juan CountyCommissioner, Lyman served as chairman of the board of commissioners, as chairman of the Seven County Infrastructure Coalition, as a member of the Pension Finance and Inter-governmental Relations Committee and Native American Relations Subcommittee in NACO (the National Association of Counties). While commissioner he helped to establish the San Juan County Public Health Department which brought services to the Southeast Corner of Utah and especially to the Navajos living on the Utah portion of the Utah Navajo Reservation. Lyman has been described as a firebrand in the State Legislature where he replaced another notable firebrand Mike Noel in 2019.[6]
Federal government protest
In May 2014, Lyman organized an ATV protest ride in Recapture Canyon, which was closed to motorized vehicles by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to protect cultural artifacts.[7] Lyman and Monte Wells, a co-defendant, were later convicted of operating off-road vehicles on public lands closed to such vehicles.[8] The protest was seen by Lyman and his supporters as an act of civil disobedience against what they perceived as federal overreach and excessive regulation of public lands.[9]
Federal land management agencies and conservationists viewed the protest as a violation of established regulations aimed at preserving sensitive archaeological sites and protecting cultural resources.[10]
Lyman and Wells faced trial, were found guilty, and sentenced to serve jail time, pay fines, and undergo probation.[11] Their convictions stemmed from their role in organizing and publicizing the protest ride, despite the BLM's closure of the area.[12] The legal proceedings underscored the clash between local interests advocating for increased access to public lands and federal authorities responsible for enforcing land use regulations and protecting natural and cultural resources.[13]
While Lyman and his supporters viewed the protest as a legitimate form of dissent against what they perceived as federal overreach, federal prosecutors argued that the protest constituted a deliberate violation of established laws and regulations governing public land use, a view supported by Judge David Nuffer who presided over the case.[14]
Lyman attempted to challenge his conviction, arguing that the BLM lacked authority to close the route. However, his motion for a new trial was denied by Judge Nuffer, the federal judge overseeing the case.[15] The legal challenges highlighted the broader legal and jurisdictional issues surrounding federal land management policies and the extent of federal authority over public lands.[16] While Lyman and his supporters questioned the legality of the closure and the authority of federal agencies to regulate public land use, federal prosecutors and conservationists maintained that the closures were necessary to protect sensitive archaeological sites and preserve cultural resources for future generations.[17]
In December 2020, President Donald Trump granted clemency to Phil Lyman, along with several other individuals. Lyman expressed gratitude for the pardon, viewing it as a correction of past injustice related to his conviction.[18] The presidential pardon reignited debates over the appropriateness of pardoning individuals convicted of environmental and public land management-related offenses.[19] While Lyman and his supporters welcomed the pardon as a vindication of their opposition to federal land management policies, critics viewed it as undermining the enforcement of environmental laws and regulations and setting a dangerous precedent for future acts of civil disobedience on public lands.[20]
