Another stab at wilderness

When the issue is framed in the right way, Utahns have shown a strong regard for the need to protect their fragile environment. Take the debate over Snake Valley water near Nevada. Las Vegas wants to pump water beneath the Utah desert, and county officials in the affected areas oppose the move because of the damage that may occur to the soil, vegetation and wildlife.

But when it comes to setting aside parts of the rest of the state with federal wilderness designations, the issue gets framed in an entirely different way. To many Utahns, it becomes a case of environmentalists and outsiders trying to tie up valuable land, rather than one of preservation.

That's unfortunate, because the two efforts are not so different. It ought to be possible to find a compromise. But then, observers have been saying that about the wilderness debate for 20 years now, to no effect.

On Thursday, America's Red Rock Wilderness bill, as it's now known, will receive a congressional hearing for the first time. That's a victory, of sorts, for its supporters and its chief sponsor, Rep. Maurice Hinchey, a Democrat from New York. But the hearing with the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands doesn't mean the bill will proceed any further. The ranking Republican on that subcommittee is Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah.

A new opinion poll commissioned by the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance seems to show that about half of Utahns support designating 9 million or more acres as wilderness. Polls, however, rarely decide issues, and they always are open to challenge.

Environmentalists pitch the bill as necessary to stem the intrusion of recreationists with their off-road vehicles. A subset of these people like to cut their own trails through sensitive land. With a climate that has been increasingly dry in recent years, those vehicles can cause greater damage than in the past, perhaps even stirring up dust storms carried by the wind.

But of course, environmentalists are concerned, as well, with the possibility of oil drilling and mineral extraction on sensitive lands. Drilling and mining equal jobs in impoverished parts of the state.

There ought to be a middle ground. Off-road vehicles are a growing problem on many public lands where they should not be allowed. Utahns also ought to see the need to protect areas that contain a particularly unique beauty.

But the bill will never get much support in Utah as long as it calls for 9.4 million acres to be preserved, without any hint of allowing a compromise that tries to meet opponents somewhere in the middle. No one from Utah's congressional delegation has signed onto the bill. Despite arguments that these beautiful lands belong to all Americans, such a lack of local support is significant.

Maybe if both sides found a common enemy, similar to the thirsty Las Vegas residents who want to pump water, this issue finally could get resolved.