Carping over river deal is sour grapes

While it certainly would be easier or more "politically correct"' for BLM to simply close lands next to the river, taking the easy route isn't necessarily the best way to manage the public's lands and resources. By combining leasing with setbacks that protect the river corridor it is possible to create a win-win situation where aesthetics are preserved while at the same time allowing energy companies to directionally drill or legally drain underneath a subsurface reservoir from a location outside the river corridor. This is why energy companies are willing to pay as much as $11 million for tracts with no surface occupancy stipulations (as they did in the recent September oil and gas lease sale) adjacent to rivers where surface disturbance is strictly off-limits.

Unfortunately, this nuance of how things actually work out on the ground is often drowned out by the shouting. Nevertheless, it is the method we've been using for decades to both protect sensitive areas while allowing the public's oil and gas assets to be appropriately developed by energy companies.

Utah's public lands are an extraordinary gift. I encourage citizens to speak out to ensure their wise stewardship. But I caution those who really care for these lands from getting caught up in harmful histrionics that rely upon tearing down every debate into my-way-or-the-highway absolutes, when nothing about the BLM's multiple-use mission is as simple as black or white.

---

Sally Wisely is the Utah Bureau of Land Management state director.