WASHINGTON — Environmentalists, along with local and federal officials, all have problems with the Washington County lands bill.

Despite those problems, they also all still like the latest version versus the one proposed in 2006, they explained before a Senate subcommittee Tuesday.

The Washington County Growth and Conservation Act of 2008, which Sen. Bob Bennett, R-Utah, introduced in the Senate earlier this month, designates wilderness areas in the county but also allows for the sale of certain areas of public lands, with a percentage of the revenue going back to the county.

"No one is completely happy with everything in this legislation," Bennett told the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Public Lands and Forests Subcommittee. "Around here, that may be the sign of a good bill."

Bennett and other witnesses explained that the bill is the product of years of negotiations with the public, the government and environmental community. It involves a great deal of compromise.

Unlike the previous bill, Bennett said that there is "no active opposition" to the bill, and praise during the hearing did outnumber complaints.

"It is time now to act," Bennett said, rather than just hearing the same arguments over and over.

There is an overall support for the bill, but witnesses at the hearing were intent on pointing out their problems with it as well, ranging from specific boundaries of wilderness or conservation areas to public use of the lands.

Julie Jacobson, deputy assistant secretary of Land and Mineral Management at the Department of the Interior, wants to see the formula for distributing the land sales revenue change to "ensure that an appropriate share of the proceeds is returned to federal taxpayers."

The bill now states that 15 percent of revenue from land sales resulting from the bill would go to the state and county, split between 10 percent going to the county and 5 percent going toward schools. The remaining 85 percent goes to the federal government.

Bill Meadows, Wilderness Society president, had problems with the fact that 10 percent earmarked for the county "is not limited to conservation purposes and could be used for a variety of local projects, including transportation infrastructure and water development."