"Even before the Lincoln County Bill, there was a trend in place, where these big omnibus bills have been passed," she added. The bills designate a little wilderness but also do much for development, such as facilitating water development and giving away or selling off public land, she said.

"It's getting worse. We're talking larger amounts of land, outrageous giveaways, more subsidies to local government."

But Alyson Heyrend, a spokeswoman for Matheson, said Tuesday that the arguments for the bill are persuasive.

"Congressman Matheson believes the bill tries to balance growth with preservation," she said. "Utah environmental groups have pushed for a great deal more wilderness than is in this bill. But any legislation involves compromise."

One of the Utah groups listed in the latest mailing is Save Our Canyons, a 1,200-member group based in Salt Lake City. Gale Dick, president of the group, said in a phone interview that the Washington County bill needs more scrutiny and public input.

"We have looked askance on the sale of federal land for some time," he said. "The outdoor retailers have got it right: This is not a good deal for Utah."

The Outdoor Industry Association this month announced its opposition to the bill.

Another Utah organization against the bill is the Utah Environmental Congress, also based in Salt Lake City.

"My concerns with the Washington County bill are the same concerns with all these other bills," said Kevin Mueller, the group's executive director. Each of the bills has "this quid pro quo approach to wilderness," with wilderness designation given in exchange for federal land giveaway or sale.

His group is also concerned about rampant development, he said.

"St. George has just about run out of new sources of water," Mueller said, "and this Washington County bill would secure rights across public land for a spigot (a proposed pipeline) to run from Lake Powell to the St. George area, to allow for more sprawl and development."

---

E-mail: bau@desnews.com; nperkins@desnews.com