Neither happy, but environmentalists, Washington Co. agree on redrock measure

WASHINGTON - A bill seeking to balance conservation with the needs of a growing population has the tepid support of bitter adversaries in Utah's redrock country.
    Washington County leaders and environmentalists testified before a Senate subcommittee Tuesday in favor of a compromise sponsored by Utah Sen. Bob Bennett. While they still harbor their concerns, the joint show of support "represents a high water mark" in the state's land use debate, Bennett said.
    The legislation, which Bennett drafted with Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, is the latest version of a proposal that failed two years ago.
    Both versions protect valuable wilderness in exchange for the ability to sell off some government lands. But the new version boosts the acres that will gain wilderness status while reducing the number of acres that will end up in the hands of developers.
    "No one is completely happy with this legislation," Bennett said. "And around here that may be a sign of a good bill."
    Nothing exemplifies the continued acrimony more than what the Utah senator calls "the Nevada precedent."
    The Washington County bill is not a new idea. It is modeled after two Nevada bills that allow four county governments to receive a portion of the money earned by selling surplus federal lands. Normally, the federal government uses any money made from such sales to buy environmentally valuable land.
    Under this proposal, only 85 percent of the money would go to this purpose, while 5 percent would go to Washington County schools and 10 percent would go to the county government.
    "We think that is wrong," said Bill Meadows, president of The Wilderness Society.
    Meadows still supports the bill because of the 265,000 acres that would receive wilderness protections, but he doesn't believe the county government should get any of the money.
    Other environmental groups continue to oppose the legislation on this point.
    "The bill is trying to find a balance and right now it is a little bit off. The deeper you dig there are lots of little problems," said Justin Allegro, a spokesman for the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance.
    While SUWA and Sierra Club members say the new bill is an improvement, they think more acres should receive wilderness protection and off-highway vehicles should be more restricted. But their biggest concern is the county's share of the land sale profits.
    The county government can use those funds on administrative costs, road projects and water delivery among other things.
    They want Bennett to add new limitation to how the county government could use the money.
    Eardley, a county commissioner, also has problems with the land sale provision of the bill. He doesn't think it includes enough acres. The new bill drops the possible acres to be sold under this agreement from 24,300 to about 9,000. Originally, Eardley was hoping the bill would allow for the sale of as many as 90,000 acres, similar to the Nevada bills.
    Despite the opposition, Bennett remains confident that the bill will gain the approval of Congress and in large part he is relying on the Nevada precedent.
    "The fact that Congress has done this four times already will make it easier for us to do it again," he said.
    mcanham@sltrib.com