EDITORAL PAGE — The great Utah land grab

It’s election year in the United States, and the outlook for incumbent President Bill Clinton appears to be rosy in most states — most, but by no means all.

One notable exception is Utah, where residents are fuming over Clinton’s decision to declare nearly 2 million acres “off limits” to mineral development.

The President used the relatively obscure 1906 Antiquities Act to create a new national monument the size of Yellowstone Park. He did so without the benefit of a congressional hearing and, in the process, ignored the wishes of local residents and the professional input of the federal agency charged with evaluating wilderness suitability.

It was election-year politicking of the sort that plays well in the eastern U.S. and in Beverly Hills, California, where few care that the land grab scuttled plans to develop one of the richest coal fields in the nation, with an estimated 62 billion tons of high-quality coal. Unfortunately, coal is not a glamorous commodity and few Americans are aware that it accounts for more than 57% of the electricity generated in their country.

The value of mineral wealth is better appreciated in the rural west and, as might be expected, Governor Leavitt and the entire Utah congressional delegation vehemently opposed Clinton’s action. State officials bemoaned the loss of future royalty payments from coal, and noted that a small portion of the land would have generated as much as US$1.1 billion for Utah’s public school system.

The National Mining Association (NMA) was quick to decry the President’s creation, by administrative decree, of the Escalante National Monument. “On its face, this appears to be an attempt to satisfy a few at the immediate expense of Utah, and eventually of the entire United States,” said NMA President Richard Lawson.

He noted that two-thirds of the nation’s 650 million acres of public lands are already off limits to mining. “President Clinton is adding to this unrealized mineral potential, apparently without concern for the economic health and well-being of the local, state and federal governments that would benefit from the development of the Kaiparowits Plateau [coal project].” The Colorado Mining Association (CMA) was equally critical of the President’s decision to create the wilderness area in southern Utah. It asked why the administration chose to act pre-emptively, “thereby circumventing the strict federal surface mining laws that allow an open, scientific and public process for determining whether such lands should be declared unsuitable for coal mining.”

The CMA also raised the point that the government cannot simply “take” land, as taxpayers ultimately foot the bill in one way or another. The government is required to compensate owners with valid existing rights and, in this case, it will either have to pay millions in compensation or swap federal lands elsewhere in exchange for the coal reserves affected by the decree.

We agree with the CMA’s view that much is wrong with the approach taken by Clinton’s administration with respect to Escalante Canyon, and his public lands policies in general. At the very least, the President should have listened to the views of residents most affected by his unilateral decision.

He did not, and, as a result, westerners are feeling alienated — a feeling reflected in a statement by the CMA: “Many westerners can only conclude one thing based on this decision. This land is no longer `your land and my land.’ It belongs to the politicians inside the Capital Beltway.”