Environmentalists who have been battling the Washington County Growth and Conservation Act acquired a national ally on Monday: The New York Times.

The bill is sponsored by Sen. Bob Bennett, R-Utah, and Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah. It would sell up to 24,300 acres of federal land and designate more than 200,000 acres as wilderness, as well as set aside 165 miles of the Virgin River under wild and scenic river status.

In an editorial Monday titled "True Wilderness, and False," the Times roasted the proposal, branding it "a raid on national resources aimed at helping private developers."

The opinion piece began by describing newly designated wilderness areas, including the Cedar Mountain Wilderness in Utah. Although the newspaper did not mention the fact, the main impetus behind the Cedar Mountain designation was not to protect nature but to block a railroad spur that Private Fuel Storage wanted for its proposed nuclear storage facility in Skull Valley.

"This is not to say that all wilderness bills are free of low motives and commercial intent," the Times wrote, and "one particularly distasteful example" is the bill introduced by Bennett and Matheson.

"It would sell off 40 square miles of federal land to private developers in Washington County, the fifth-fastest- growing county in the country and already something of a monument to suburban sprawl and strip development," the newspaper said.

About half the area to be designated wilderness is already protected, the newspaper added. Some of the proceeds from the sale would go not to local conservation projects but off-road vehicle trails.

"Most alarming," the editorial said, is that the proceeds would go to help a 120-mile pipeline to draw water from Lake Powell, "which is is already stressed by undisciplined development."

The Times added, "It is the worst sort of Congressional earmarking."

Bennett and Matheson accused the Times of inaccurately characterizing the legislation. Bennett responded by e-mail, saying opponents of the bill focus on wilderness. If they address the specifics, "they misrepresent them like the latest New York Times editorial."

Bennett said in the e-mail that planners are working with land managers, not developers, to identify land for disposal. "We worked with other stakeholders to determine how to meet water, utility and transportation needs," he said.