Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > Wilderness
 Reply to topic
Previous :: Next Topic
Author Message
Frank
Member
Member


Joined: 10 Jul 2004
Posts: 318 | TRs | Pics
Location: Snohomish
Frank
Member
PostMon Sep 04, 2006 8:29 am 
From the New York Times True Wilderness, and False Under the radar, Congress has been quietly adding to the nation’s inventory of protected wilderness. In three bills approved by both houses and signed by President Bush, the 109th Congress has awarded wilderness designation to 11,000 acres of canyonland and desert in New Mexico, 10,000 acres of rain forest in Puerto Rico and 100,000 acres in the Cedar Mountains of Utah. Four more wilderness bills have cleared one house or the other, and when approved will add another 750,000 acres of wilderness in California, Idaho, Oregon and Washington. More such bills are waiting in the Congressional wings. The Wilderness Act of 1964 prohibits all commercial activity — roads, buildings, logging, drilling — in areas designated as wilderness, the highest level of protection given to any public lands, including the national parks. Congress has designated roughly 106 million acres as permanent wilderness, more than half of it in Alaska. Measured against this number, the latest designations may seem like small change. Yet they reflect rare moments of bipartisan cooperation at a time when Congress seems polarized on just about everything, not least conservation issues. They also reflect well on local groups that have worked long and hard to find common ground between environmentalists and commercial interests. And while Mr. Bush seems as determined as ever to open up chunks of the public estate to commerce, especially for oil and gas drilling, like other presidents before him he finds it impossible to resist grass-roots ideas that have been so thoroughly debated in advance. This is not to say that all wilderness bills are free of low motives and commercial intent. One particularly distasteful example is a bill introduced by Senator Robert Bennett and Representative Jim Matheson of Utah. It would sell off 40 square miles of federal land to private developers in Washington County, the fifth-fastest-growing county in the country and already something of a monument to suburban sprawl and strip development. In exchange, it offers wilderness protection to about 220,000 acres. Wilderness bills often involve land swaps — small amounts of land for commercial purposes in exchange for lots more permanent wilderness — and the Utah deal would seem to fit the pattern. It doesn’t. First, about half the proposed wilderness is already protected. Second, some of the proceeds would go not for local conservation projects but for off-road vehicle trails and, most alarming, for a 120-mile pipeline to draw water from Lake Powell, which is already stressed by undisciplined development. Third, there has been little public input. Finally, there appears to be plenty of private land available to satisfy the county’s insatiable needs. This is, in short, a raid on national resources aimed at helping private developers. It is the worst sort of Congressional earmarking. And it gives true wilderness bills a reputation they do not deserve. I

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
   All times are GMT - 8 Hours
 Reply to topic
Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > Wilderness
  Happy Birthday speyguy, Bandanabraids!
Jump to:   
Search this topic:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum