There’s a bill before Congress
that would have far-reaching impacts for my backyard in Utah and
could also set a precedent for where you live, especially if you
— like me — love the public lands that make the West
unique.
The legislation is called the Washington County
Growth and Conservation Act, sponsored by Utah Sen. Bob Bennett, D,
and Utah Rep. Jim Matheson, R. But while its name suggests an
enlightened melding of smart growth and conservation, the bill
sells off federal land in southwest Utah on the doorstep of Zion
National Park, and gives the proceeds to local water developers.
A portion of the earnings from the land sale of up to
25,000 acres would be used to subsidize a water pipeline from Lake
Powell, 120 miles away, to the driest county in the second-driest
state in the country. This is public land being sold to fund water
projects for a community that already has the highest per capita
water consumption rate among desert cities in the United States. In
addition, this water will come from the Colorado River, whose
bounty has been over-allocated for some 80 years.
The
bill establishes hundreds of miles of corridors for utility lines,
highways, pipelines and dam sites across currently undeveloped
public lands. But while the bill paves the way for infrastructure,
it ignores two-thirds of Utah’s iconic wilderness landscapes from
that region — land that desperately deserves protection.
Perhaps the most troubling aspect of the bill is the one
that could hit your favorite canyon, forest or mountain: It is the
dangerous precedent of selling off federal land owned by all
Americans to benefit strictly local interests.
The
Washington County Growth and Conservation Act would direct 8
percent of the estimated millions of dollars in proceeds from
public land sales into the pockets of a local water development
group, 2 percent to the county for administrative costs, and 5
percent to the state of Utah. The remaining 85 percent of the
profits would pay for a variety of local projects within Washington
County, including the establishment of off-road vehicle trails. It
is left to the discretion of the Bush administration as to how the
85 percent will be allocated, as long as the money is spent
locally.
This legislation affects me both personally and
professionally. My life, as well as countless others in this
spectacular state, is vastly enriched by my access to public lands.
I work at the foot of the Wasatch Mountains and my lunch breaks
include running or skiing on wilderness trails minutes from my
office door. I also own a business that sells climbing and skiing
gear and am therefore involved in the outdoor recreation industry
that generates $267 billion nationwide. This industry, largely
dependent upon the long-term protection of public land, has a rich
heritage of giving back significant profits to fund public land
enhancements and open space conservation. I don’t want to see our
incremental progress stripped away by the passage of this
wrongheaded bill.
The long-term effects of this
legislation are profound. When these lands are sold, the money
spent, and continuing management needs or new projects come up, do
we sell more land to pay the costs? Once we start shedding these
beautiful public lands, where do we stop?
For those of us
who use public lands to camp, fish, hike, climb, picnic, hunt or
for our businesses, this bill offers a vision of a diminished
American West with “no trespassing” signs and freedom lost. If this
trend spreads, I can imagine public-land sales beyond the West, for
example, in the Boundary Waters Area in Minnesota or national
forests in Virginia.
There is no justification for
selling the lands that were handed down to us just for the
short-term financial gain of special interests. We are now at a
point where many communities throughout the West are voting to tax
themselves to acquire diminishing open space and reduce sprawl.
That is the future we want to head toward. This legislation points
us in the opposite direction.

