This month the state of Utah and 22 counties gave advance notice of intent to sue the U.S. Department of Interior to preserve public travel on nearly 19,000 well-established county roads on federal lands, a right guaranteed by Congress.

A Dec. 19 Salt Lake Tribune editorial ("Spending on roads: State to sue over tenuous claims," Our View) called this effort a "long, costly battle" to assert "tenuous claims" to "cow tracks and trails" which are "merely dirt paths," all in a "lost cause."

A review of the facts would be helpful:

Nineteen thousand may sound like a lot of roads. But spread that number across Utah's 22 million acres of Bureau of Land Management land, and that works out to only one road for every 1,158 acres, or 1.8 square miles, if the roads were spread out evenly. Many BLM areas have higher and others far lower concentrations of county roads, resulting in vast stretches with no roads, or so few as to be scarcely noticeable, while still providing a minimal transportation network vital to rural Utah.

The Tribune calls for more public education funding. County roads must remain open to achieve that goal, open for responsible energy, agricultural and timber production, open for family and group outings, open to restore and upgrade wildlife habitat and watershed, and open so outdoor lovers, be they elitist or blue-collar, fit or disabled, alone or with children and aged parents, may share in an equally decent chance to reach the state's many great outdoor venues.

That ethic, equal opportunity of access to the public lands, is as deeply American as public education itself. Guaranteeing that access by keeping county roads open will drive Utah's economic engine, producing more investment and jobs, more royalties and taxes, and, yes, more revenues for public schools. That is the lasting answer to Utah's public education dilemma.

Tenuous claims to mere dirt paths? County roads have been used and maintained for decades. They are significant enough to show up on vintage U.S. Geological Survey official maps and/or U.S. Department of Agriculture aerial photographs. They are specifically identified one by one in the notice to file suit, thus removing the old complaint that the state and counties have "hidden the ball" on their road claims. Thanks to these notices, the counties' precise road claims are on the table for all to see.

The counties, like The Tribune, do not want protracted, expensive court battles unless all other avenues are refused them. More than signaling intention to sue, these notices signal the desire for long-overdue dialogue among the federal government and other stakeholders with a view toward reaching out-of-court road settlements statewide.

Counties grow weary of arbitrary road closures and other restrictions visited upon them by new and different administrations. They tire of uncertainty. They seek a cost-efficient resolution of road ownership once and for all.

The ongoing pilot road negotiation project in Iron County, though still a work in progress, gives hope this holiday season that the state and counties, the Department of Interior, the conservation community, the ranchers, the energy producers, Native American groups, the motorized recreation community and other interested groups all may trust each other enough to solve these road issues through honest dialogue while traveling the roads themselves, instead of through courtroom clashes with thousands of exhibits.

Hopefully, the notices served this month will inspire Iron County-style discussions across Utah so the lawsuits may be placed on hold while reasonable minds work things out.

D. Brent Gardner is executive director of the Utah Association of Counties. J. Mark Ward is the group's senior policy analyst and public lands counsel.