LAURA ELLERTSO
During the summer of 1995 the issue of Utah wilderness land designation climaxed when two bills were placed before the United States House of Representatives and debated fiercely.
Interested parties attempted to agree on how many millions of acres of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land in Utah should be designated as wilderness. Currently, none of the bills involved have any committee action scheduled.
On June 6, 1995 Rep. James V. Hansen, R-Utah and Senator Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, introduced the 'Utah Public Lands Management Act' known as HR 1745 and S 884 in the House and Senate respectively.
The bills proposed setting aside 1.8 million acres of land in Utah as wilderness. The bill which was supported by Utah Governor Michael Leavitt (R) would result in a total of 8.2 percent of Utah land designated as wilderness.
Utah representatives and senators hoped to take advantage of the fact that the GOP had control of Congress again.
At that time, Rep. Bill Orton, D-Utah, who is currently seeking re-election, did not sign the bill. Orton's aide told reporters that Orton wanted to make sure that the concept was given a full and fair hearing.
Instead, Orton created his own proposal which would set aside 3 million acres as wilderness, 1.8 of which are currently designated as National Conservation Areas offering them little protection.
Rural county commissioners felt that 1.8 million acres were too many and drafted their own bill which proposed only one million acres be declared wilderness, saying that they just could not bear to see the land 'locked up.'
Chris Cannon (R), running against Orton for his Congressional seat, said he 'would've supported the proposal presented by the Utah delegation.'
'The proposal,' he said, 'had been worked out over several years and much input from all interested parties.'
Cannon, along with other Utah Republicans, is disappointed that Orton, who originally supported the bill presented by the delegation withdrew his support at the last minute.
Rep. Maurice Hinchey, D-NY put forth another measure known as HR 1500 which proposed 5.7 acres of designated wilderness land in Utah and gained the support of many other lawmakers, mostly from eastern states.
Currently there are 116 co-sponsors of the bill of which 100 are democrats, 15 republicans and one is independent.
Hinchey's proposal was similar to one recommended by Utah Democrat Wayne Owens during his service.
HR 1500, also called 'America's Red Rock Wilderness Act of 1995' would place the responsibility for protecting and managing plant and animal life over 5.7 million acres in Utah on the Department of the Interior.
In a statement from the citizens hearing on June 22, 1995, Tom Lyon compared the 5.7 acres to a 'tithe' since the 5.7 acres would represent about 10 percent of Utah.
'A giver of a tithe says: there is something greater than me and my needs and desires . . . I willingly forego that 10 percent, in true recognition of my fortune, in true gratitude to the world,' said Lyon.
A poll taken in 1995 indicated that more than one-third of Utahns supported the 5.7 million acre proposal while just 26 percent backed HR 1745 and S 884. The other 22 percent wanted less than 1.8 million acres to be designated as wilderness.
'These lands are some of the finest desert roadless areas to be found anywhere in the world,' according to the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA). SUWA members are concerned that unlike BLM wild lands in other states, the wild lands in Utah lack any form of long-term protection.
HR 1745 contained many provisions which are not typically included in wilderness legislation. Such deviations as grazing rights, irrigation, low military fly-overs, communication sites and other uses were discussed.
HR 1745 also contained 'hard release' language which if passed would require the BLM to make lands not officially declared as wilderness available for multiple uses.
The bill said lands 'shall not be managed for the purpose of protecting .'
SUWA compared the 'hard release' language to the 'death penalty' for the cause.
In the Senate, Hatch introduced the proposed wilderness areas under S 884 calling them 'crown jewels . . .those areas so rich in beauty and grandeur that there can be no question that they meet the wilderness criteria.'
One of the criterion that Hatch spoke of was that the land designated as wilderness would not be that 'high in resource development potential.'
Senator Bill Bradley, D-NJ, who did not support S 884, stated on the Senate floor that in the past 25 years Utah's population has increased.
'Utah has enjoyed an 80 percent jump . Much of this was directly attributable to the attraction of the state's largely unspoiled environment.'
Bradley also commented that mining and agriculture jobs are on the decline in Utah. He believes that preserving more wilderness land will mean many economic benefits for the state of Utah since tourism is a huge source of revenue for the state.
According to Bradley, S 884 reflects 'old economic thinking and old economic patterns with boundaries set to accommodate new extractive developments which threaten currently pristine areas.' Bradley also felt that much of the language in the bill was damaging.
Bradley suggested, paraphrasing Professor Thomas Power of the University of Montana, that wilderness designations themselves serve as a sort of advertisement that the natural beauty of the state will remain available for future generations.