This is a printer friendly version of an article from thespectrum.com
To print this article open the file menu and choose Print.


Back

Article published Oct 9, 2006
Land bill point of discussion in future debate
By RYANN RASMUSSEN
rrasmussen@thespectrum.com

CEDAR CITY - The Washington County Growth and Preservation Act of 2006 is controversial among the residents of Southern Utah.

However, it's not such a controversial topic with Democratic incumbent Jim Matheson and Republican challenger LaVar Christensen, who will face off for Utah's 2nd Congressional District seat in the Nov. 7 election.

The land bill, which identified up to 25,000 acres of public land to be sold for private development, was unveiled by Matheson and U.S. Sen. Bob Bennett, R-Utah, in July.

In addition to worries regarding water and the environment, many Washington County residents who oppose the legislation are concerned the bill might take away their peaceful way of life.

"This bill represents the difference between a livable, safe, welcome environment and a sprawling metropolis that loses its charm to uncontrollable growth," said Lin Alder, executive director of Citizens for Dixie's Future. "The bill would seriously threaten to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs of economic prosperity and quality of life."

But Washington County Commissioner James Eardley said the bill provides an opportunity to accomplish goals set forth by county officials.

"Without the land bill, the planning process may not be as comprehensive because of the constraints of federally held grounds," he said. "The land bill gives us the tools and flexibility to accomplish things."

Matheson and Christensen, meanwhile, mostly agree on the major aspects of the bill, which also includes provisions to encourage environmental preservation.

Matheson said the land bill doesn't specifically provide funding for the Lake Powell pipeline, a project which he is neither strongly for or against.

However, the bill does allocate a percentage of the revenue to the Washington County Water Conservancy District, which will ultimately decide how its money is spent.

Further spending will be determined by the "Vision Dixie" project, which is a general plan for Dixie's future supported by Washington County officials, Matheson said.

On the other hand, Christensen said the Lake Powell pipeline project is one of his top priorities and he trusts the leaders of Washington County to meet the water needs of an additional 25,000 acres of possible new development.

"(The leaders) have taken the necessary steps to make sure we stay ahead of the water needs in Southern Utah," he said. "This bill is an important part of that master plan."

Louise Excell, who serves on the Springdale Town Council, said one of her reasons for opposing the land bill is that there weren't enough opportunities for public input.

Only a few, carefully selected individuals were invited to comment, she added.

"I don't think we had a fair opportunity to comment on this bill," she said.

In response to the concern from residents, Matheson said public comment was solicited through various mediums, such as the Internet and public meetings.

Prior to introducing the bill, he added that many residents did voice their opinions.

"Between March and July, we received hundreds of public comments," Matheson said. "I'm not sure what else we could have done to solicit public comment."

As for Christensen, he said the public comment process will continue through the "Vision Dixie" plan and residents will have additional opportunities to provide input. The bill will continue to evolve, he said.

"I believe any time important legislation is passed, the public education process occurs over time," Christensen said.

The Washington County Growth and Conservation Act of 2006 includes provisions to help fund Washington County wilderness protection projects, such as the Wild and Scenic River destination along 165 miles of the Virgin River, and designating the Red Cliffs Reserves as a National Conservation Area.

According to a press release from Matheson's office, the bill also designates 343 square miles of new wilderness.

Matheson said the purpose behind the bill was to provide a balanced effort between growth and wilderness preservation and it's a continuing push to find a middle ground.

"As with all legislation, it takes compromise to get things done," he said.

Christensen argued that the land in Washington County should be locally owned and controlled, and although he supports wilderness conservation, he doesn't necessarily agree with extreme environmentalists.

However, Christensen agreed with his opponent by saying the bill is a solid effort to compromise.

"The bill represents a very balanced approach to growth and resource management," he said.

Posted: Mon Oct 09, 2006 8:08 pm    Post subject: Land Bill

I'm sure that Rep. Matheson feels this is a fine bill since he's a co-sponsor and that Mr. Christensen is also a supporter given his political persuasion. However, the Land Bill has left many unanswered questions for many of us in Southern Utah. The bill was constructed based on only 5 meetings held in 2004! The input from these five meetings was used by Senator Bennett and Representative Matheson to construct the bill, but the meeting participants never saw the bill before it was issued in March 2006 to the public. Several of the meeting participants have subsequently spoken against the bill, but the politicians want it to appear that the work group participants bought into a bill that they never even saw before it was made public. The authors say that two years was put into drafting the bill, but two years to draft a bill that will have ramifications lasting into perpetuity is unacceptable. They say the bill is necessary to accommodate the area's growth when in fact it promotes more growth than we many even need through the sale of public land. More review of this is required. Vision Dixie may be a good plan for this review but that review is needed before this bill is passed not just after. Following bad decisions with a plan for implementing (Vision Dixie) them is not reasonable, and it's NOT been shown that this bill is filled with good decisions.