Utah Environmental Congress:
In The News

80 Groups Oppose Dixie Lands Act

September 13, 2006

By Joe Bauman and Nancy Perkins
Deseret Morning News

Eighty environmental groups from across the nation, most of them in the West, have joined forces to denounce the Washington County Growth and Conservation Act of 2006 and three other congressional measures they say offer token wilderness designations in exchange for land giveaways or sell-offs.

The coalition includes 10 Utah groups. The 80 organizations are urging other conservation groups to join them in their opposition.

The House Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health is scheduled to begin consideration of the Washington County lands bill Thursday.

Meanwhile, Washington County Commissioner Alan Gardner — who supports the land bill — said Tuesday that maps related to the bill have been posted on the Web site of Sen. Bob Bennett, R-Utah, at www.senate.gov/~bennett/special/washcountyland.cfm. The maps show utility and other corridors, as well as 4,300 acres selected earlier by the Bureau of Land Management for disposal.

But they do not show more land — about 20,000 acres — that also would be included for sale under the bill. A local planning group called Vision Dixie, made up of city and county representatives and residents, would decide on which parcels would be sold.

The environmental groups are opposing four bills: the Washington County bill, sponsored by Bennett and Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah; the White Pine County (Nev.) Conservation, Recreation and Development Act; the Central Idaho Economic Development and Recreation Act; and the Owyhee (Idaho) Initiative Implementation Act.

The groups are calling for a "moratorium on destructive public land bills." The aim is to draw attention to not only the Washington County bill but also the other three bills, said Janine Blaeloch of the Western Lands Project, in Seattle, who has been heading the effort.

The other bills "are just as bad as the Washington County bill," she said. "The Washington County bill has gotten a lot of publicity — well-deserved bad publicity — but these three other bills are under the radar."

All four bills are part of the same phenomenon: "trading off public land in one place to get some amount of wilderness protection elsewhere," she said.

Blaeloch said the Utah bill is the latest, and it is modeled on a Lincoln County, Nev., land bill that was spearheaded by Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. That measure passed in 2004.

"Even before the Lincoln County Bill, there was a trend in place, where these big omnibus bills have been passed," she added. The bills designate a little wilderness but also do much for development, such as facilitating water development and giving away or selling off public land, she said.

"It's getting worse. We're talking larger amounts of land, outrageous giveaways, more subsidies to local government."

But Alyson Heyrend, a spokeswoman for Matheson, said Tuesday that the arguments for the bill are persuasive.

"Congressman Matheson believes the bill tries to balance growth with preservation," she said. "Utah environmental groups have pushed for a great deal more wilderness than is in this bill. But any legislation involves compromise."

One of the Utah groups listed in the latest mailing is Save Our Canyons, a 1,200-member group based in Salt Lake City. Gale Dick, president of the group, said in a phone interview that the Washington County bill needs more scrutiny and public input.

"We have looked askance on the sale of federal land for some time," he said. "The outdoor retailers have got it right: This is not a good deal for Utah."

The Outdoor Industry Association this month announced its opposition to the bill.

Another Utah organization against the bill is the Utah Environmental Congress, also based in Salt Lake City.

"My concerns with the Washington County bill are the same concerns with all these other bills," said Kevin Mueller, the group's executive director. Each of the bills has "this quid pro quo approach to wilderness," with wilderness designation given in exchange for federal land giveaway or sale.

His group is also concerned about rampant development, he said.

"St. George has just about run out of new sources of water," Mueller said, "and this Washington County bill would secure rights across public land for a spigot (a proposed pipeline) to run from Lake Powell to the St. George area, to allow for more sprawl and development."