When it comes to the issues surrounding the Legacy Highway and the proposed negotiated settlement, there seems to be a great deal of confusion. As one state representative who has decided to strongly oppose the settlement, I would like to clarify a few points with some hard facts.

As we all know, a group of environmentalists — originally led by Rocky Anderson and the Sierra Club — sued the state of Utah to stop construction of the Legacy Highway. Because the state had apparently not completed all the preliminary work it should have, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in the plaintiffs' favor on three basic issues, out of more than 90 points presented.

Basically the court ordered the state to do three things: expand its Environmental Impact Statement effort; consider other routes through the affected wetlands; and consider in addition to the highway other modes of mass transit along the same corridor. Those seem to be three "doable" directives from the court. UDOT tells us they have worked for nearly five years to meet the court's order. It seems to me the state has gone several "extra miles" to properly complete this process.

For example, we have so far spent $27.2 million on environmental impact studies. For a 14-mile road, that is nearly $2 million per mile just in study! We have also put tremendous effort into the other orders of the court. As a lawmaker, I have the responsibility to my constituents and all Utah taxpayers to ask whether UDOT has really done its job. It assures me it has.

So if we have spent all this money and effort to meet the order of the court, why are we negotiating with the Sierra Club? Are we obligated to do so? Why do people seem to believe the negotiation and settlement are at the order of the court, when they are not?

Fact: The state's negotiation with the Sierra Club has no direct tie to the original lawsuit against the Legacy. Last Tuesday's Deseret Morning News headline read, "Legacy lawsuit is all but settled" (Page A1, Nov. 1). That headline appears to say that this negotiation was directly tied to the lawsuit; it was not. UDOT decided to "negotiate" with the Sierra Club because the Sierra Club has threatened to sue the state again if it did not get its way. The width of the road and shoulders, the paving surface, the speed limit and barring trucks have nothing to do with the 10th Circuit's ruling.

It is a terrible public policy precedent to "negotiate" with people who simply threaten to sue the state. "Blackmail" is a strong word, but I don't know what else to call it.