And the fact that the Washington County Water Conservancy District, prime mover behind the pipeline project, now seems to want to wash its hands of the troublesome land bill highlights another reason why that bill deserves to be left behind in Congress.

The Washington County land bill, presented to Congress by Utah's Sen. Bob Bennett and Rep. Jim Matheson, does not specifically authorize or pay for the long-planned pipeline that would, at a cost of some $500 million, carry water nearly 160 miles from Lake Powell to Cedar City, by way of St. George.

Thus the "Dear Friend" letter issued the other day by Ronald Thompson, general manager of the Washington County water district, makes a valid argument when it states that those who oppose the public land sell-off authorized in the Washington County bill are wrong if their reason for doing so is the idea that stopping the land bill would stop the pipeline. Or vice versa.

Planning for the pipeline has been under way for years, motivated by the existing population growth and the projections showing that, in St. George and Washington County alone, population could easily grow from the current 140,000 to 350,000 in the next 25 years.

And that's just the growth on the already available private land. It makes no allowances for the further boom that would be made possible if the land bill passes and authorizes the sale of some 25,000 acres of public land that is now off limits to development.

Even if the Lake Powell Pipeline were built tomorrow, and even if the lake level doesn't keep dropping, nobody claims it would be enough to serve even the people who may soon live on the already developable land. It would provide nowhere near enough water for the people who would live on land that would be sold off.

Thus, all the reasoning flows back where it began. Plan for the development of the greater St. George area first, then talk about selling off public lands.

Doing it the other way around is an idea that just doesn't float.