Environmentalists a hindrance to Utah
Text 
By JAMES V. HANSEN
Guest commentary
For 22 years I had the privilege of sitting on the U.S. House of Representatives Natural Resources Committee. When I went on the committee in 1981, Arizona's Mo Udall was the chairman, and New Mexico's Emanuel Lujuan was the ranking member. I later became chairman of that committee.
We worked with all the land and water issues, Indian issues and matters affecting parks and territories. One of the first bills I worked on was the Utah Forest Service Wilderness Bill; Utahn's Sen. Jake Garn was the Senate sponsor. Members of the Interior Committee were quite familiar with the Wilderness Act, the Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, and many other pieces of legislation affecting our natural resources. After we completed the Forest Service Wilderness Act, which was signed by President Reagan, we started on the Bureau of Land Management and National Park Wilderness Act.
Working with the state of Utah, we came up with an acreage figure of 4.2 million acres. That legislation was carefully drafted to follow the 1964 Wilderness Act. The environmental community came up with 5.7 million acres.
After the poorly done inventory conducted during the Clinton administration under Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt, which strangely enough came up to 5.7 million acres, the environmental community immediately changed its proposal to 9.3 million acres. The intriguing question was: Who would sponsor the bill?
As committee chairman, I tried to make certain that a member was always given the first chance to sponsor a bill that was in his or her congressional district, or at least in the state which they represented. In this case, the Utah environmental community shopped the Congress and finally found Maurice Hinchey from Ithica, N.Y.
When Mr. Hinchey first introduced the 5.7 million-acre bill, he had never been to the state of Utah. I remember asking him if he'd ever seen the acres in question, and he responded that he had flown over the area on his way to Los Angeles. I did not let those bills out of committee as, in my opinion, they were contrary to the wishes of Utah citizens and, in most cases, violated the 1964 Wilderness Act.
On more than one occasion, I challenged the environmental community to put the issue on the state ballot -- its proposed 9.3 million acres, the state's proposed 4.2 million acres or zero. I told them I would sponsor and carry the legislation if they received a majority of Utah votes, but if the bill was defeated, they should support whatever won. They declined that challenge, demonstrating to me and many other members of the committee their lack of sincerity.
I found it interesting that Congressman Hinchey was willing to tell Utahns how to run their state, but when other members introduced legislation in his state, he was highly offended.
The environmental community said it would go along with my challenge if all states could vote on the Utah Wilderness Bill. I think that is acceptable if they will produce a resolution from those states indicating that we can vote on issues which are applicable only to their states.
I feel Mr. Hinchey is out of line to attempt to tell the people of Utah what is right for us.
I cannot see what the environmental community has done to help the environment of Utah. It appears to me that all it does is raise money and file lawsuits. Many of the environmentalists support draining Lake Powell, are against the Legacy Highway and oppose almost every proposal for energy development.
Regarding the Legacy Highway, the lawsuit brought by the environmental community and Mayor Rocky Anderson cost the state of Utah more than $200 million. If they were really stand-up individuals, they'd spend the rest of their lives repaying the debt they created.
I continue to stand by the unwritten law that the people of each state elect their congressmen and senators, and they should sponsor and carry legislation affecting their own states.
Hansen represented Utah's 1st Congressional District in the U.S. House for 22 years. He lives in Farmington.
Reader Comments
I for one, am glad that there are those 9.3 acres protected! I also own property that backs onto the Grand Staircase National Monument, and I was thrilled to see that land saved. It is some beautiful country that should be left undistrubed for generations to come.
Hansen may be right in that there are some in the pro-environmental movement that are extremists, that take the issue too far. But as with most issues, there is always another side...
Wilderness and environmental protection are extremely important - much more important than Hansen gives them credit. Energy development - i.e. drilling for oil/natl gas - is an environmentally damaging process that yields only short-term gains. And since the political leadership in this state gives much more creedence to "economic development" over environmental protection, often times filing a lawsuit is the only way to have your voice heard.
And, as you'll recall, a non-partisan federal judge did in fact rule in favor of the environmentalists in the Legacy Highway lawsuit, so there was something to their argument.
As a society we will deeply regret environmental degradation in the long term if we continue to allow it to happen. Economic development is short-term; economic prosperity comes and goes. It is NOT as important as the quality of our air, the purity of our water, or the health of our planet's ecosystem.
Balance is important, and many Utah environmentalists feel strongly that the balance is currently way out-of-whack. Development is fine so long as it takes environmental concerns into account; otherwise it is, and very well should be, cause for concern.
Very well said.
James Hansen has always tried to work with the envioros. But when raising money to keep there cushy jobs rather than "protecting" lands, is there first priority, it makes one wonder.
I agree with Jim and think that perhaps we should start reclaiming 9.3 million acres of land in state of New York and put the national parks closer to the people.