Let the jousting begin.

Two groups - the Utah Taxpayer's Association and the Utah Farm Bureau Federation - voiced their opposition to the $150 million bond proposal following the certification announcement, an indication that the real campaign is now just beginning for open space proponents.

"It's time to let the voters decide," said Amanda Smith, president of Utahns for Clean Water, Clean Air and Quality Growth, the initiative's sponsor.

Monday's events marked the culmination of a back-and-forth battle to get the open space measure on the ballot. Initiative backers gathered well over the required 76,000 petition signatures to qualify, but were initially rejected by the state for failing to meet the secondary threshold of obtaining signatures from 10 percent of registered voters in 26 of the 29 senate districts.

But initiative sponsors - who fell short by two districts and just a couple hundred signatures - appealed the decision to the Utah Supreme Court, arguing that Utah and Cache counties had rejected signatures because some didn't match home addresses in voter registration records. On Aug. 13, the court ordered a recount of petitions in both counties, leading to certification.

And the start of a campaign to defeat the initiative.

Mike Jerman, vice president of the Utah Taxpayer's Association, says the one-twentieth of a cent sales tax increase initiative backers are asking for to finance the bond - about $14 per year for the average Utah family over 10 years - is too much.

"We're not opposed to open space preservation, but first and foremost, this is a tax increase," Jerman said, arguing that the Utah's burden from federal and state taxes and fees is already third highest in the nation.

"We also question whether voters should be asked to pay for this statewide when many of these issues can be resolved at the local level," he added. "Communities have different priorities. It only makes sense to have these matters voted on and funded locally."

Randy Parker, chief executive for the Utah Farm Bureau Federation, echoed those concerns, but also believes there is a more fundamental issue - the initiative process itself.

"When the framers created the Constitution, they established a representative form of government," said Parker. "If you look at the initiative process, a lot of times it's based on emotion and who has the largest bankroll to tell their side of story. That's not the best way to establish priorities and policy."

Parker believes open space backers should have again made their case to the Legislature - which tabled an open space bonding resolution last year before it reached the House floor for a vote - before seeking petition signatures. The initiative process, he said, "should only be a last resort."

Smith, president of Utahns for Clean Water, Clean Air and Quality Growth, says the initiative option came about only after open space proponents endured a half-dozen years of rejection at the hands of lawmakers.

"Anybody who's really been watching or knows the Legislature knows that this is something they weren't going to address at this or any time in the future. And they'd be the first to admit it," she said.

Smith also argues that preserving open space is something all Utahns have a stake in.

"It's hard to put a border on clean air and clean water," she said. "And if you turn the argument around, you'll get [rural] county commissioners who absolutely say Wasatch Front residents should pay for these amenities that they come to their counties and use. A lot of these places don't have the tax base to do these types of things. A statewide tax is the only equitable way to meet the needs of rural areas."

jbaird@sltrib.com