Proponents of Initiative One, which proposes to do all of those things with a $150 million bond backed by a small sales tax increase, say it's a bargain-basement price to preserve and even enhance the state's quality of life.

But opponents call it a fiscal boondoggle that would constrain lawmakers from bonding for other needed projects, and they predict that the ballot measure would usher in an era of California-style "government-by- initiative."

There is little middle ground here, in other words. And this past week the political stakes were raised significantly, with outgoing Gov. Olene Walker voicing her opposition to the initiative, joining the Legislature's leadership, the Utah Taxpayers' Association and the Utah Farm Bureau.

But backing the measure is a broad-based coalition that includes gubernatorial candidates Jon Huntsman Jr. and Scott Matheson Jr., hunting and fishing organizations, environmentalists and individual farmers and ranchers.

Yet many Utahns are still on the fence about Initiative One, or don't understand it. In a recent Salt Lake Tribune survey, undecideds (35 percent) outpolled both initiative opponents (33 percent) and supporters (31 percent). A little less than a month before Election Day, Initiative One still appears up for grabs.

But initiative backers are confident they will prevail. The more voters know about the measure, says Amanda Smith, president of Utahns for Clean Water, Clean Air and Quality Growth, the more inclined they are to support it.

"If you can tell people how it specifically benefits them, what really matters to them, it resonates," she says. "This is the first time Utahns will have a chance to protect the values that are important to them - the riparian areas, the water and the air, and farms and ranches - and at the fairly minimal cost of $14 a year for the average family of four. And it will be done via a responsible funding mechanism with oversight by the state and Legislature and projects chosen by a group of citizens - the Quality Growth Commission.

"We think this initiative is a fiscally responsible way to meet all of these needs," Smith adds. "It's a sales tax based upon how much [residents] spend, and it's more equitable because it's also paid for by tourists and visitors. And a bond is the best way to fund land protection. Because it's secured by a sales tax, we can bring the bonds in at a low rate. With land prices rising the way they are, we end up getting a pretty good return on the money."

Initiative One calls for the bond to be paid off with a 1/20th of a cent sales tax increase over a maximum span of 13 years, but sponsors say it should only take 10. Projects to be funded by the measure range from cleaning up polluted lakes and rivers to purchasing wildlife habitat and conservation easements for family farms and ranches, building trails, improving city and state parks, enhancing historic and cultural landmarks and helping finance community facilities.

But Sen. Howard Stephenson, R-Draper, the president of the Utah Taxpayers Association, calls Initiative One anything but fiscally responsible.

In fact, he says the ballot measure "violates more sound budgeting practices and principles than any proposal I have ever seen. And if it passes, it will give a rallying cry to every other spending group that wants to put their project on autopilot and remove it from the normal budgeting process."

Stephenson's organization and other initiative opponents are critical of a provision for $30 million of the $150 million bond to be set aside for the community facilities, which could include recreation and convention centers. He also says the measure would "significantly" reduce the state's bonding capacity, limiting lawmakers' ability to fund other building or road projects and would increase a state and local tax burden on residents that is already the third-highest in the nation.

The Taxpayers Association isn't crazy about bonding for the money either; Stephenson claims that Utahns would end up forking out $45 million in interest before the bond is paid off.

More fundamentally, initiative opponents believe funding for open space and critical habitat is a local issue that should be decided at the local level - pointing to recent open-space purchases in Park City, Salt Lake City and West Jordan, and a pending joint purchase by Draper and Riverton.

"They talk about $150 million over 10 years; that's a spit in the ocean compared to what the state and local governments have spent in the last 10 years," Stephenson says. "But the initiative folks don't talk about that. They won't tell the whole story."

However, initiative backers point out that the ballot measure has passed muster with the state's bond and legislative review councils, and the attorney general's office.

Smith notes that Initiative One might never even have been born had the Legislature made a commitment to provide funding for open space and other critical lands. The state's designated source, the LeRay McAllister Fund, was drained after an original investment of over $3 million. About $700,000 sits in it now. And an open-space bonding measure put forth by Rep. Ralph Becker, D-Salt Lake City, in the last legislative session never made it to the House floor for a vote.

"For us, this initiative was a last resort," said Smith. "If they had thrown some dollars in the McAllister fund, all of this would have probably gone away."

And that brings the Initiative One issue to the one place where backers and detractors are in agreement: Driving a good part of this debate is the initiative process itself.

"It's safe to say that much of the opposition is due to the precedent that would be set," said Stephenson. "It takes budget and policy out of the hands of elected officials, who must weigh and value different proposals with resources. My fear is that, if this one passes, you're going to see more of these measures on the ballot in the coming years. It's going to be 'California, here we come,' with all the red ink that comes with it. And I think that's pathetic."

Says Smith: "I'm sure they consider it a slap in the face, and the real topper is that Initiative One is creating tax policy. It enables people to tax themselves and address some of these issues that the Legislature has refused to. So yes, the camel's nose is under the tent. But whose fault is that? Maybe the Legislature should be more responsive to the people's needs and desires. We've followed the law. We're on the ballot. And the constitution allows us to exercise this fundamental right."

jbaird@sltrib.com

Initiative One would:

* Authorize the state to borrow up to $150 million in bonds, to be repaid by a 1/20th of a cent sales tax increase over a maximum of 13 years.

* Finance projects for the purpose of preserving watersheds, rivers, lakes, streams, wetlands, critical wildlife habitat, endangered species habitat, agricultural lands and farms and ranches.

* Earmark up to $30 million for community projects, such as athletic fields, recreation centers, pools, convention centers, and enhancing museums of natural history.

* Be overseen by the state's Quality Growth Commission, whose members are appointed by the governor.