Washington County Land Use Bill

There is a big todo here in our county about the Washington County Land Use Bill. It is a co-sponsored bill by Rep Matheson and Sen Bennett of Utah. I have heard that the bill will pass or not pass very soon in the senate. There is a conserted effort to stop this bill from passing. Most of this effort has come from environmental groups and a group headed by Lin Alder called "Citizens for Dixie's Future". I wrote an Opinion letter that I am thinking about submitting to The Spectrum, our local paper. Here it is. I really hate people that write letters to the editor, they are so annoying so I may decide not to submit it to the paper and if I don't at least 2 sets of eyes will see it. Jared and Josh's.

To the Editor,

Thank you Washington County Commissioners for standing your ground on the Washington County Land Use bill. This bill, which designates almost 220,000 NEW acres for Wilderness Area (bringing the total Wilderness Area in Washington County to about 18% of the total land area), has been misrepresented and misinterpreted since it was first announced. This bill is co-sponsored by both Senator Bennett and Representative Matheson. It seems this bill has been made out to be just a republican bill but yes, contrary to what you may read in the opinion page, Representative Matheson is also sponsoring this bill. This bill also neither encourages growth nor stifles it but simply provides a means to handle the inevitable growth that will come whether we, the citizens, like it or not. As a native of this area, I would be very happy if not another person moved here and we could keep the current smog, traffic, and crime levels as low as they are today. Unfortunately, our local economy, as well as the individual rights of private property owners, does not afford us this luxury. The county commission and other local private and public organization leaders have, therefore, come up with this bill as a means to properly facilitate and manage this inevitable growth.

If we are interested in curbing growth, the land use bill is not the place to do it, nor is it appropriate to do from a county level. Growth has been very moderate in our unincorporated county. Growth has exploded in our incorporated municipalities such as St George, Hurricane, Ivins, etc. Any urban planner will tell you that curbing growth is impossible on the regional level and very, very difficult even at the city level. The land use bill is a regional issue, discussing to some degree or another all 1.5 million acres in Washington County. For those up in arms about the release of 25,000 acres of land from BLM land to private use, this land has been designated by the BLM as lands appropriate for privatization for many years. The city of Santa Clara, for example, has about 1350 acres of BLM in its incorporated boundary. Why else would Santa Clara incorporate this land if it is never to be privatized? The land use bill simply facilitates this process and also designates where proceeds from the sale of said lands will go so the county and its citizens can get the most out of the sale of these lands and proceeds are not lost on the federal level. Many are also concerned that not enough Wilderness Area has been proposed. I would ask how much Wilderness area is enough? I enjoy the Pine Valley Wilderness area very much but not all non-private land is appropriate for Wilderness Area as congress has defined it. If 18% of our county is not enough wilderness is 19%? 20%? What about the designation of the Desert Tortoise Reserve as a National Conservation Area? This designation will ensure that the tortoise will be protected well beyond the 20 year timeframe that was originally established 10 years ago. It amazes me that there is not more of an outrage over the over-wildernessing of our lands instead of the lack of wilderness in this bill. In my opinion the commission got it just right.

At what point do we trust in our elected officials to do the job that we elected them to do? If we allow it, the Citizens For Dixie's Future or the Citizens Against Virtually Everything as I call them, will need to be in on every step the commission or other city leaders take. Don't get me wrong, I respect those that have come out in opposition to this bill. I think many of them are misinformed and will use one aspect of the bill that they do not agree with (the 25,000 acres to be privatized) to condemn the whole bill. But I don't agree with the opposition and want to know if I am alone. Where are the citizens that do not want so much Wilderness area? Where are those that know this growth is coming to our very desirable area and whether we like it or not we need to be ready. The land use bill is a step in that direction.