Exploiting the Utah Wilderness Issue
On Thursday, the Utah State House of Representatives will debate HJR 10, Rep. Aaron Tilton’s “Joint Resolution Opposing Designation of Public Lands Currently Urged by Congress and the Bureau of Land Management.” He means wilderness designation, but must be afraid to put that word into the title of any legislation, however symbolic.
Of course, this is just an exercise in political propaganda sponsored by big-money oil industry lobbyists. It has nothing to to with anything any responsible citizen in Utah would want. But then, that’s pretty much a description of the entire Utah BLM wilderness debate for the last 15 years.
For a truly astounding example of piling absurdity on top of an already absurd situation, check out the website StopUtahLandGrab.org.
Ultra-liberal New Yorker Maurice Hinchey, a political extremist in the U.S. Congress, wants the federal government to designate more than 9.5 million acres of land in Utah as “wilderness.” That would lock away these public lands from virtually any use by Utahns. It will cost Utah taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars in lost revenue. And it will force America to buy more of our energy from foreign dictators who hate America.
In case that paragraph was too subtle, they also put up pictures of Osama bin Laden, Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad– all alleged supporters of wilderness designations in Utah. Have those guys ever heard of Utah?
The entity that put up the StopUtahLandGrab website, Americans for American Energy (AAE), is still struggling in vain to pass the laugh test. For one thing, they are not a grassroots organization. AAE was created by Pac/West Communications, a company that specializes in ginning up industry front groups. As a 501(c)(4) nonprofit lobbying group, AAE does not have to disclose financial contributions.
From the Casper Star-Tribune:
Sheldon Rampton, research director for Center for Media & Democracy, said Americans for American Energy appears to be a “front group” for corporations that wish reshape the issue of balancing energy development and the environment.
“One thing that strikes me is their Web site goes so far as to say, quite unambiguously, is the people who oppose the exploitation of oil shale are in league with terrorists,” Rampton said. “It’s a very intentional campaign to reframe environmental issues to the war on terror.”
If you want an example of a land grab, look at the Washington County “developers dream” bill proposed by Rep. Matheson and Senator Bennett in 2006.
The answer obviously lies somewhere between (1) the position that all roadless federal lands ought to be designated wilderness, and (2) the position that we already have enough designated wilderness.
Most Utahns want to see wilderness management where appropriate. When I was with the Utah Wilderness Association, we designed a proposal for 3.8 million acres of wilderness on BLM land. It included every area that could benefit from incorporation in the National Wilderness Preservation System. Very few oil and gas resources would have been affected– as Nathan Whiting notes above, these tend to be in areas with roads. By the time the Bush administration is done, everything will be leased anyway.
Synfuels are another issue, a land grab if there ever was one– and this is where AAE comes in. Oil shale and tar sands development in Utah would ruin vast natural areas to the point they would be unrecognizable and ecologically defunct. Middle Eastern terrorists could never hope to do that much damage. Wilderness designation isn’t even relevant to this debate. Under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, the BLM is required to “take any action necessary to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of the lands.” This applies to all public lands.
This AAE press release got the ball rolling. According to the Salt Lake Tribune, it turns out that Representatives Tilton and Noel didn’t write the letter they allegedly wrote, didn’t sign it, and Rep. Noel had never even seen it. Modern lobbying in action!
On the other side of the debate, we have a set of big national environmental groups that want to prevent Utah wilderness legislation. That’s why they work to polarize the issue and that’s why they have Rep. Hinchey (D-NY) and Senator Durbin (D-IL) as roadblocks in Washington.
The national environmental groups (e.g. The Wilderness Society and Sierra Club) don’t believe any grassroots wilderness bill from Utah will be good enough for them. They also like having the Utah wilderness issue unresolved so it can be used for fundraising on the national level. Less than one percent of the Sierra Club membership lives in Utah, so the local clubbers have no clout.
Their 9.5 million acre BLM wilderness bill isn’t intended to be viable, it’s just there to create the appearance of doing something and as a device to torpedo competing legislation.
More info:
Oil Shale and Tar Sands Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
Rep. Maurice Hinchey op-ed in the Salt Lake Tribune
Acknowledgment to Ken Schreiner for blogging about StopUtahLandGrab back in December.
February 11th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
What is it with this “Ultra-Liberal New Yorkers” tag that Utah conservatives use to whip up a little fear, surprise, terror, and an almost fanatical devotion to the Profit? They used to say the same thing 30 years ago to oppose development that was considered “not Utahn enough?” Specifically, I heard it back when Trolley Square was first sold to out-of-state interests. It amazes me that this kind of coded language is still in use… oh, wait, Utah is always several decades short of a full century.
And by the way, Dick Durbin rocks.
February 11th, 2008 at 8:42 pm
This is supposed to be the State of Utah, not the State of the Federal Government. Except for the Wasatch Front and a few other slivers of land Utah is almost entirely owned by the Federal Government and as long as that is true we will have eastern liberals controlling our destiny.
February 12th, 2008 at 2:05 am
These phony grass roots movements are infuriating. Is this connected to the, so called, sagebrush rebellion of many years ago. We’re supposed to believe that hundreds of farmers in southern Utah are on the rampage to let giant corporations exploit the treasures of Utah.
This makes me want to puke!
February 12th, 2008 at 6:30 am
More than a couple New Yorkers I know have peered into a Utah canyon and state that gee whiz, we would only need one to dump all of our garbage. That could be what whips up fear.
There are no end of federal leases in Utah for all manner of nefarious activities, past and present.
Whatever is “locked away” is only done so for as long as it isn’t needed, when the time comes reversals come forward when the money talks.
An interesting contrast to Utah, is Vermont, which while a small state, is 93% privately owned. It is interesting, is it not,? that despite the rhetoric of “saving” wilderness areas, the greatest abominations environmentally are all occurring on federally leased parcels.
February 12th, 2008 at 8:59 am
The age-old problem with public lands is known as the Tragedy of the Commons. There is always an incentive to try and privatize resources off them and externalize the costs (such as severe environmental degradation from mining oil shale and tar sands).
If we lived in a real democracy, this wouldn’t happen because the government would abide by the law. Under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, the BLM is required to “take any action necessary to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of the lands.” So, wilderness or no wilderness, the extreme level of exploitation advocated by AAE and the corporations they are fronting for is illegal.
February 13th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
Ken says: “and as long as that is true we will have eastern liberals controlling our destiny.”
I say: thank “god” and let’s hope and pray Utah remains federal land.