PDA
Action Alert
Urge your Representative, especially
those in the House Resources Committee to oppose the present bill HR
5769
This bill is suspect from environmental, conservation and
cultural reasons — Even the Bush Administration is in opposition!
HR 5769, introduced by Rep. Jim Matheson (D-UT) on 12 September 2006
and its companion bill, S. 3636 introduced by Sen. Bob Bennett
(R-UT)
on the same date has the short title of The Washington County Growth and
Conservation Act of 2006. Despite its stated desire to
“conserve,” in reality, the bill does while designating certain areas
of the environmentally sensitive Zion-Mojave area of Washington County,
Utah, protected areas, does much more than that. It seeks to
authorize — at government expense — “critical water, transportation
and utility corridors.” A similar proposed designation of lands
in Nevada (the White County
Conservation, Recreation and Development Act of 2006) was
to be subject to public hearings on disposal of public lands, while
this bill allows over 20,000 acres to be gobbled up for such projects
as developers might see fit with no such public input required.
The Nevada bill also sought to help purify the waters of Lake Mead, and
promote water conservation and the development of affordable housing
through Nevada.
The full text of the bill(s) are available via GovTrack.us
(http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-5769)
During initial subcommittee testimony against the bill, Jerry
Greenberg, Vice President for Regional Conservation with The Wilderness
Society on behalf of Friends
of Nevada Wilderness, The Nevada Wilderness Project, Campaign for
America’s Wilderness, Red Rock Audubon, and The Wilderness
Society spoke in opposition to the Washington County legislation.
“Greenberg noted that the Nevada and Utah bills are very different. The
Washington County bill has inadequate wilderness protection, leaves out
many of the most ecologically sensitive areas, and sets arbitrary
mandates on land sales. While conservationists have consistently said
they believe the acreage figure for land sales in the Nevada bill is
excessive, the parcels must be identified through the BLM’s resource
management planning process. The Utah bill mandates sales for
approximately 20,000 acres and does not require that those lands be
identified through a public planning process.” — Wilderness.org
(http://action.wilderness.org/wildernessII/notice-description.tcl?newsletter_id=2601348)
Not merely opposed by national environmental groups, but even by
President Bush’s own Bureau of Land Management, the bill is seriously
flawed. Chad
Calvert, the Principal Deputy Asst. Secretary, Land and Minerals
Management, US Dept. of the Interior, noted the danger in the bill in
its present form in testimony before the House Subcommittee on
Forests and Forest Health on 16 September 2006. Calvert noted
that not only would the sale of the nearly 25,000 acres “effectively
require the Treasury to borrow more funds to pay this interest” on the
sale, but that the parcels proposed for sale were unacceptable to the
BLM since “the density of unique and special cultural resources in the
identified area is exceptionally high.”
(http://www.blm.gov/nhp/news/legislative/pages/2006/te060914.htm)
This bill, while protecting a certain percentage of public lands in
Utah, also is a handout for developers who are seeking corporate
welfare to produce more housing in a fast-growing area adjacent to some
of the most environmentally sensitive and culturally significant wild
regions in the West. The “development” portion of the bill’s text
would effectively allow the City of St. George, already the
fast-growing city in Utah to be additionally overdeveloped by the
utility, water, and transportation corridors proposed. Rather
than seeking to conserve electricity and water and fossil fuel use in
the Zion-Mojave area, this bill seeks to encourage it — at public
expense.
Additionally the Southern
Utah Wilderness Alliance is also fighting the drilling of gas wells
in the White River Wilderness Area along with the pork barrel aspects
of HR 5769. The BLM has planned for drilling and construction of roads
for access through this presently pristine wilderness surrounding the
New River. They seek input from the public at the above link to
show disapproval of this move.
(http://www.suwa.org/entry.php?entry_id=792)
Urge all your Representatives and Senators to oppose the bill, HR 5769
and to comment in opposition on the Bureau of Land Management’s plans
to develop the New River Wilderness.
Talking Points;
Environmental Conservation
Cultural Significance
Unsustainable Growth
Corporate Welfare
Posted by wickedtrio 