[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 129 (Wednesday, September 18, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10827-S10831]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ESCALANTE NATIONAL MONUMENT PROPOSAL
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, for my colleagues who may have missed it,
today President Clinton used executive power under the 1906 Antiquities
Act to designate nearly 2 million acres in southern Utah as a national
monument.
A national monument, as my colleagues know, effectively locks up land
within its boundaries preventing any kind of responsible development
and limiting existing rights, including water rights, in the second
driest State in this Union.
Utah is already home to five national parks, two national monuments,
two national recreation areas, seven national forests, one national
wildlife refuge, and 800,000 acres of wilderness.
We prize our land in Utah. We believe we ought to preserve as much of
it as we can, and we would like to continue working on legislation to
designate more wilderness in Utah.
But the process the President is using is flawed and inherently
unfair. I just say, the unilateral action taken by the President today
is out of bounds. Members from Utah's congressional delegation and our
State Governor had to read about this proposal in the Washington Post.
That is the first time we heard about it. There has been no
consultation whatsoever in the development of the proposal. We have
seen no maps; no boundaries; there have been no phone conversations; no
TV or radio discussion shows; no public hearings; absolutely nothing
from this President.
None of the procedures for review and comment that are built into our
environmental laws, such as the National Environmental Policy Act or
FLPMA have been followed. These procedures are a part of our law
precisely to guard against the Federal Government from usurping State
or local prerogatives without public knowledge or comment.
While the 1906 Antiquities Act may, indeed, give the President the
literal authority to take this action, it is quite clear to me that in
using this authority, President Clinton is violating the spirit of U.S.
environmental laws and, indeed, of American democracy itself.
It was no doubt inconceivable before today that any President of the
United States would take such dramatic action--action that so
dramatically affects any State--without due diligence. And it is plain
to this Senator that the White House either flunks the test of due
diligence or takes this action deliberately without regard to its
negative impact on our State.
What should be especially relevant, and alarming, to every Senator is
that this disregard for established public law requiring public input,
let alone the disregard of established traditions of democracy, can be
applied elsewhere other than Utah. Today, Utah; tomorrow, your State.
I hope my colleagues will not brush off the precedent this Executive
action creates. There are numerous negative consequences to this
President's action today. Among the most serious is the effect on
education in Utah.
Many States in the West depend on school trust lands to help finance
their educational systems. In fact, 22 States, most of the States west
of the Mississippi River, have trust lands.
Utah relies heavily on the income produced by these trust lands to
help finance our schools. The national monument proclaimed by President
Clinton will capture approximately 200,000 acres of Utah school trust
lands and render them useless to Utah schoolchildren. I say to my
colleagues, and to President Clinton if he is listening, this is a
potential loss of $1 billion to Utah schools, and these environmental
extremists are already talking that it is only $36,000 a year. That is
how ridiculous they are.
There is not a single State in America that can afford to lose that
kind of money for education--that is $1 billion worth --let alone Utah,
which, because we have so much public nontaxable land, is always
straining to fund education.
What is even more appalling is the fact that the resources President
Clinton is taking away from Utah kids, in effect, is their own land.
These school trust lands were deeded to Utah to be held in trust for
our children's education, and with one stroke of the pen, these 200,000
acres will be gone.
The Utah Public Education Coalition, which includes professional
educators, State and local administrators, the PTA and school
employees, have come out strongly against this arbitrary action by the
President.
I ask unanimous consent that their letter to President Clinton,
position statement and resolution, be printed in the Record at the
conclusion of my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, another adverse ramification of the
President's action today is inability to responsibly extract the high-
quality, clean-burning, low-sulfur coal that lies in the Kaiparowits
coal basin. Please note, the coal is in the basin, not on the
Kaiparowits Plateau. This is not a strip mine. This is a mine right in
the side that will not even show.
The basin has been called the ``Saudi Arabia of coal.'' There are
about 62 billion tons of coal here, about 16 billion tons of which can
be mined with existing technologies. That is enough coal to fulfill
Utah's energy needs for the next 1,000 years, and, I might add, the
energy needs of this country. That is environmentally sound coal that
could be blended with the dirty coal from the East, and it would be in
the best interest of the environment of this country.
I find it a little ironic that the President wants to prevent the
mining of this clean, environmentally beneficial coal while we are
still paying billions of dollars to clean our dirty air from burning
high-sulfur, dirty coal.
These coal reserves, in addition to being a financial asset to our
State, are a critical energy resource for our entire country. We are
being extremely shortsighted if we forget this fact.
How can we justify sending U.S. troops to keep the Middle East stable
and to keep the oil flowing when President Clinton refuses to develop
energy resources right here in our own country? We have to do both. We
have to act in the best interest of the energy needs of this country.
What the President did today is not in the best interest.
Mr. President, we should not forget the impact the restrictions on
water rights will have, not only on Utah, but also on Colorado, New
Mexico, Nevada, Arizona, and California.
Utah is the second driest state in the union. This action by
President Clinton would deny our state the right to develop its water
in southern Utah.
Finally, Mr. President, I wonder how the Administration plans to pay
for the operations and maintenance of what would be the largest
national monument in the United States.
Already, the National Park Service is stretched to the limit. Adding
nearly 2
[[Page S10828]]
million acres to their inventory--almost the size of Yellowstone--
raises real questions about our stewardship of this land. We want to
preserve land in southern Utah.
There is no question that Utahns want to protect as much land as we
can. We would support a well thought out proposal for additional
national park or wilderness areas in southern Utah.
We also recognize that there are differences of opinion concerning
the number of acres and management prerogatives. We believe those are
matters for negotiation and compromise, not for making political hay
with important special interest groups.
We would like to work with President Clinton to develop a sound
preservation plan. And, the offer is still open to work together on
this.
But, frankly, I say to my colleagues, real damage has been done
here--both to Utah and to the tradition of open debate. The failure
even to consult prior to making this decision should be considered
devastating to representative democracy.
Our Utah newspapers have thus far been unanimous in their criticism
of the President's action. But, they also represent the people of Utah.
They may be sympathetic to environmental concerns--just as Utahns are--
and they may support more protected land in southern Utah--just as many
Utahns do--but they draw the line on a Federal Government exercising
what they construe as abusive power--just as Utahns do.
So permit me to quote from an editorial this morning from the San
Francisco Chronicle: ``The question is whether a decision of such
magnitude should be carried out by executive order. We think not.''
While acknowledging their differences with me and my colleagues on
the specifics of the wilderness bill proposed earlier, the Chronicle
goes on to suggest that:
``In this case, Clinton is taking the wrong route--an
election-year shortcut--to the right goal.''
The bottom line here, Mr. President, is that any proposal that is
going to have such an incredible impact on the people of Utah--or of
any other State--ought to be vetted by our political process.
People ought to be able to debate it in the press, on talk radio, in
civic clubs, and across back fences. They ought to be able to write
their Congressman. They ought to be able to support it or protest it.
Utahns have had little opportunity to do either. There is something
fundamentally wrong with a Presidential action that deprives a State of
$6.5 billion in revenue, $1 billion for education, surrounding States
with water resources, and the entire Nation of important energy
resources without even a hearing or a vote.
One last thing: I want to put the Senate, the House, and the
President on notice that this issue is not over. William Jefferson
Clinton's signature on this order isn't the end of it.
We cannot suffer this kind of an assault on Utah without a fight. So,
today it begins.
Mr. President, I will just conclude with these comments. There is no
question that Utahans want to protect as much lands as we can. We would
support a well-thought-out proposal for additional national park or
wilderness areas in southern Utah and even a national monument, which
is not as good as wilderness areas or national parks.
We also recognize that there are differences of opinion concerning
the number of acres in management prerogatives. We believe those are
matters for negotiation and compromise, not for making political hay
with important special interest groups.
We would like to work with President Clinton, if he would, to develop
a sound preservation plan. And the offer is still open for us to still
work together on this. But, frankly, I say to my colleagues, real
damage has been done here, both to Utah and to the tradition of open
debate. The failure to even consult prior to making this decision is to
be considered devastating to representative democracy.
I ask unanimous consent that a number of documents be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Standard-Examiner, Sept. 10, 1996]
Bill Clinton Should Wait for Utah's Input
In the battle between environmentalists, the federal
government and Utah's congressional delegation, the battle
for wilderness has taken a creative turn.
President Clinton and his Secretary of the Interior, Bruce
Babbitt, have floated an unusual trial balloon: The
administration may invoke a 1906 statute to create a 1.8
million-acre national monument encompassing Utah's
Kaiparowits Plateau.
It would be called Canyons of the Escalante National
Monument, and the thing that's driving Gov. Mike Leavitt and
Utah's congressional delegation crazy is that Clinton can
accomplish the task with a stroke of his pen--Congress and
the state be damned.
It's the kind of bold move Clinton might enjoy taking in an
election year, cuddling up to and solidifying his support
among environmentalists across the nation, who have been
pushing for designation of 5.7 million acres of wilderness in
Utah.
Such a move would surely anger the less environmentally
inclined of Southern Utah, though, since they've been
counting on the mining of Kaiparowits Plateau coal by the
Dutch firm Andalex Resources Inc., which plans to start a 50-
year coal mining operation within the next year, bringing in
paved roads and about 1,000 jobs.
The Kaiparowits is pretty much ground zero in the
battleground between those lobbying for 5.7 million acres of
wilderness and those who prefer 2 million acres. In the 5.7
million-acre plan, virtually all of the Kaiparowits Plateau
is set aside as wilderness, whereas in the 2 million-acre
alternative only about 12 percent would be preserved.
Debate is a good thing, but this latest move by the White
House ought to be alarming to all sides. It means the
president, if he has a mind to, can bypass public comment and
unilaterally create de facto wilderness. As the
administration has said, the 1906 law permitting Clinton this
discretion can be used to protect objects of historical,
biological or archaeological importance.
If, indeed, that is the case with the Kaiparowits Plateau--
and it may well be--Clinton should use the standard means for
coming to that conclusion: study, debate and action. To do
otherwise in an election year can be seen as nothing but what
it is: pandering to a specific constituency.
____
[From the San Francisco Chronicle, Sept. 18, 1996]
Canyons of the Escalante
Our concern with President Clinton's intention to establish
the Canyons of the Escalante National Monument has nothing to
do with its paleontological or archeological value.
Indeed, there are compelling reasons to preserve a 1.8
million-acre, red-rocked patch of southern Utah, with its
stunning buttes, steep canyons and array of artifacts from
tribes that once inhabited the foreboding terrain.
The question is whether a decision of such magnitude should
be carried out by executive order.
We think not.
This may well be a worthy idea, but it deserves a fair
hearing. It deserves to go through public deliberations--as
slow and messy as democracy may be--to fully air the concerns
about sealing off access to a potentially rich coal field.
There is no dispute that President Clinton has the legal
authority under the Antiquities Act of 1906 to declare the
national monument. President Teddy Roosevelt invoked the same
statute in 1908 to protect the Grand Canyon.
Utah's congressional delegation is understandably irate at
the prospect of a Clinton-decreed monument. In their view,
the president is rolling over their concerns--and scoffing at
the five electoral votes he had no chance of getting anyway--
to score points with the broader electorate. Polls show that
voters are concerned about environmental protection, and the
deficiency of such a sensibility in Congress.
We certainly would not want to defer to Utah politicians on
this issue. After all, their pro-development bent was clearly
evident in a Utah Wilderness Bill that has been languishing
in the U.S. Senate.
Still, they deserve to be heard. Some of the canyon land in
the new monument would have been designated as wilderness in
the Utah bill. Which approach would provide the proper level
of protection? That and other land-management issues were
worth exploring--in a public process.
By drawing a circle around a chunk of southern Utah,
Clinton will have headed off the exploitation of a precious
area.
In doing it by executive order, however, Clinton and the
environmental community are likely to encounter intensified
hostility in future skirmishes over development and
preservation. Utah may not matter on the electoral map, but
small Western states pack disproportionate clout on Capitol
Hill, particularly in the U.S. Senate, and they often band
together on land issues.
In this case, Clinton is taking the wrong route--an
election-year shortcut-to the right goal.
____
[From the Salt Lake Tribune, Sept. 13, 1996]
A Monument to Rashness
The Clinton administration would be denying its own land-
management process if it
[[Page S10829]]
were to create unilaterally a huge Canyons of the Escalante
National Monument on federal land in southern Utah. It should
forgo such rash action and await results from processes
already in motion.
The concept of a Canyons of the Escalante National Monument
blindsided most everybody last weekend, when a Washington
Post story revealed that President Clinton was considering
such protection for 1.8 million acres in Kane and Garfield
counties. Under the 1906 Antiquities Act, he has the right to
establish national monuments, just as other presidents have
on Utah's public lands. But a designation of this magnitude,
at this time, would not be well-advised.
There are two intertwined developments here, and the
administration ought to let them run their course rather than
pre-empt them with a national monument designation. One is
the ongoing preparation of an environmental impact statement
(EIS) for Andalex Resources' request to develop its coal-
mining claims on the Kaiparowits Plateau. The other is the
ongoing fight over wilderness designation on Utah's Bureau of
Land Management lands.
The Interior Department is involved in both, developing an
EIS on Andalex that is now projected to be ready sometime
next year and, at the recent behest of Secretary Bruce
Babbitt, conducting a new inventory of BLM lands in Utah for
wilderness designation. Wilderness advocates, who oppose the
Andalex mine, have been critical of the EIS process, yet they
endorse the re-inventory. It is a bit disingenuous to applaud
the agency on one project and distrust it on a related one.
Of course, the Utah Wilderness Coalition, which wants 5.7
million acres of wilderness designation on Utah's BLM lands
and hopes Babbitt's re-inventory will facilitate that, is
primarily looking for results--and, concurrently, for the
blocking of the Andalex mine. And Clinton's designation of a
national monument would give it more than it ever envisioned.
The proposed national monument would involve three
potential wilderness areas--the Kaiparowits Plateau, the
Grand Staircase and the Escalante Canyons. The UWC
recommended 1.27 million acres of wilderness in those three
areas. So, President Clinton's designation of a 1.8-million-
acre national monument would give environmentalists a half-
million more acres of protection than even they suggested.
Obviously, that's a stretch.
By the same token, little sympathy should be reserved for
the members of the Utah congressional delegation, who whined
about learning of the national monument idea through the
press. They already know about an unbalanced process, since
they were accused of conducting one last year prior to
unveiling their original 1.8-million-acre wilderness bill.
The delegation bill was inadequate on acreage and was
particularly short in the Escalante-Kaiparowits areas, where
it recommended only about 360,000 acres of wilderness. The
wilderness study areas that the BLM had established a decade
earlier covered 2 times that much in this precious region.
So, while a national monument providing 1.8 million acres of
protection may be off the scale, so too was the delegation's
meager 360,000 acres.
Other considerations that should cause the president to
look before he leaps include Utah's school trust lands and
the future of the Kaiparowits coal reserves. If a national
monument were designated, some sort of compensation for
school trust lands within the area would be necessary. But
the educators protest too much; their windfall from the
development of these lands is not a primary consideration on
which to base land-management decisions.
As for the estimated 62 billion tons of coal under the
Kaiparowits Plateau, that is a natural resource as well as
the unusual land above it. The president ought to think twice
before considering a designation that would inhibit the use
of that resource, which, if not developed now by Andalex, may
be needed decades from now.
Obviously, the process for determining how much of southern
Utah's public lands to protect--whether by wilderness
designation, national monument, conservation area, eco-region
or some other brand name--has not been productive so far. But
if the president's own Interior Department is assessing the
impact of the proposed Andalex mine and re-assessing
wilderness acreage, it makes little sense for him to obviate
the agency's work now by cavalierly dubbing the whole area a
national monument.
____
U.S. Senate,
Washington, September 17, 1996.
The President,
The White House, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. President: Last Saturday, we met with Secretary of
Interior Babbitt and Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)
Director McGinty to discuss the possible designation to the
Canyons of the Escalante National Monument. We are writing to
strenuously voice our opposition to this action.
Since the proposal surfaced in a Washington Post article in
September 7, we have been unable to ascertain any information
on the specifics of this proposal now under review by the
White House. Repeated requests for information from both CEQ
and the Department of Interior have resulted in no further
clarification of the story. Even our meeting last Saturday
yielded nothing new on this subject. It has been very
frustrating to know that senior officials in the
Administration have been considering creating a new national
monument in Utah, and yet we are unable to learn any of the
details--i.e., the exact location, the specific boundaries,
the impact on existing rights-of-way and permits, which
federal agency will manage the proposed monument, the impact
to state school trust lands, etc. In our opinion, this is not
the way to go about the establishment of a new national
monument, let alone carrying out the public's business.
We have expressed our specific concerns to Secretary
Babbitt and Director McGinty, and we trust they will bring
these items to your attention prior to your making any
decision to proceed further on this project this week or, for
that matter, anytime in the coming months. However, we would
like to reiterate these concerns to you so there can be no
misunderstanding.
As we indicated on Saturday, we believe this proposal, as
indicated in the Post article, should be rejected for several
critical reasons:
The total acreage of the Monument proposal will be
approximately 1.8 million acres. If this acreage figure is
correct, this proposal would create the largest national
monument in the continental United States, 1\1/2\ times the
size of the Grand Canyon National Park. This land will be
withdrawn from multiple use without any public comment and
review, including congressional hearings and meetings, and
without consulting the land managers on the ground who must
deal with any conflicts that will occur.
The State of Utah is bound by this fiduciary responsibility
to show complete and undivided loyalty to the school children
of Utah--the sole beneficiaries of the trust created at
statehood--and properly manage these lands to enhance our
schools. That is the reason for their existence. Placing
these lands within the proposed Monument's boundaries will
create state inholdings within a national monument, which
severely limits the proper management of these lands by the
trustee, the Utah State Schools and Institutional Trust Lands
Board.
Understandably, the Board is very concerned about the
future of the billions of tons of clean, low sulfur coal that
is located on these school trust lands. The Utah Geological
Survey has estimated the net present value of the coal in
this area at over $1 billion. This revenue flow is vital to
Utah, as the Utah Public Education Coalition has stated. If
this much land is taken from the school children of Utah, the
state and board of education would have no choice but to file
a lawsuit as trustees for the beneficiaries for taking over a
billion dollars of school resources without fair and timely
compensation.
Those who support the Monument proposal have spoken of the
need to protect the land for generations to come; we would
argue for support of a better and more responsible proposal
that protects the beauty of our land while enhancing the
educational component of our society for these future
generations. As we understand the proposal, it would not
achieve both results.
Acceptance of the Monument proposal would send the message
to every public lands state in the nation that at anytime the
Executive Branch could withdraw millions of acres of lands
within that state from multiple use purposes without the
benefit of a single comment from the affected state. In fact,
it may occur without any notification.
The Monument proposal will basically withdraw from future
development the largest untapped energy reserve in the United
States, valued by the State of Utah to be more than $1
trillion. The energy in the Kaiparowits Coal Basin is
comparable to 20 to 30 billion barrels of OPEC oil, and would
satisfy the energy needs of Utah for many generations to
come. The inclusion of this resource within the Monument
proposal will have an enormous fiscal impact on all taxpayers
of approximately $6 to $9 billion in lost federal royalties.
Under the Monument proposal, this resource will never be
available for future generations. We question whether these
economic and national security issues have been thoroughly
discussed by the administration prior to the formulation of
this proposal.
Mr. President, for these and many other compelling
reasons, we have very serious reservations about the Monument
proposal. We have been provided with no details on this
proposal. That is why we strongly encourage you to resist any
temptation or campaign advice to issue a proclamation
designating a new national monument in Utah this week or in
the coming weeks, until a complete analysis conducted through
a public process can be undertaken with us and the citizens
of our state. It is only through such an open process that
these and the many other issues related to the establishment
of a national monument can be properly addressed.
We would appreciate your serious consideration of these
issues.
Sincerely,
Michael O. Leavitt,
Governor.
Robert F. Bennett,
U.S. Senator.
Orrin G. Hatch,
U.S. Senator.
James V. Hansen,
Member of Congress.
Enid Greene,
Member of Congress.
[[Page S10830]]
Exhibit 1
The Utah Public
Education Coalition,
September 11, 1996.
The President,
The White House,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. President: The Utah Public Education Coalition is
adamantly opposed to the proposed designation of the
Kaiparowits Coal Basin and other lands in Utah as the
Escalante National Monument. We oppose this designation as
currently proposed for a variety of reasons.
First of all, there has been so little discussion and
review of the proposal that it is not clear what the
boundaries are. Potentially 200,000 acres of school trust
lands granted to support our schools are within the
boundaries of the proposed designation. If this much land is
taken from the school children of Utah, the state and board
of education would have no choice but to file a lawsuit as
trustees for the beneficiaries for taking over a billion
dollars of school resources without fair and timely
compensation.
One of our major concerns is over the designation of the
Kaiparowits Coal Basin as part of this national monument.
This land is separate from the Kaiparowits Plateau which is
known for its scenic beauty and unique land formations. The
Kaiparowits Coal Basin is composed of considerably less
scenic terrain and is interlaced with many miles of country
roads, an airstrip, an old coal mine, drill sites, and
abandoned mine sites.
The designation would frustrate environmentally sound
recovery of an important national resource. The coal
resources in the Kaiparowits Coal Basin represent the largest
untapped energy reserve in the United States, and this coal
is among the least polluting in the world Development of this
underground coal will be important to our nation and will
return $6 to $9 billion to the national treasury in royalties
plus additional funds through the multiplier effect.
We further believe that there is no reason to declare this
a national monument to protect the canyons of the Escalante
as they are already protected. At this time, 90 percent of
the canyons of the Escalante are already in the Glen Canyon
National Recreation Area. The remaining 10 percent are near
the town of Escalante and are in current wilderness study
areas.
On behalf of the children and our schools, we ask that you
not designate any further lands in Utah as a national
monument without full consideration of the impacts on
education in Utah and full compensation for any restrictions
placed Utah's school trust lands.
Sincerely,
Linda M. Sarkinson, Utah PTA, Brent Thure, Utah School
Superintendents Association; Mossi W. White, Utah
School Boards Association; W. Lee Glad, Utah
Association of Elementary School Principals; Janet A.
Cannon, Utah State Board of Education; Phil Oyler, Utah
Association of Secondary School Principals; Scott W.
Bean, Utah State Office of Education; Kelly Atkinson,
Utah School Employees Association; Phyllis Sorensen,
Utah Education Association.
____
Position Statement in Opposition to the Proposed Declaration of the
Canyons of the Escalante National Monument
(By the Utah Public Education Coalition)
The position of the Utah Public Education Coalition is in
support of careful consideration of the environment.
Additionally, our position is in defense of educational
opportunities for our children, a strong adherence to issues
of integrity, and a position that the best decisions are made
in an environment of information, communication, balance, and
knowledge.
The following educational issues are important:
Within the boundaries of the proposed 1.8 million acres
under consideration are approximately 200,000 acres of SCHOOL
TRUST LANDS that do not belong to the federal government.
At statehood, the federal government entered into a compact
with the state of Utah in which it was agreed not to tax the
federal lands in exchange for 5.8 million acres being granted
to support education. Utah is bound by the fiduciary duty to
show undivided loyalty to the schools of Utah, who are the
beneficiaries of the trust created by the Enabling Act. The
federal government is also bound, as grantor, by the terms of
the grant. We expect our President to show integrity in
abiding by its compacts with its own people.
Any attempt to deny the schools of Utah full fair market
value for the lands so granted would initiate a takings
procedure by the education family and the state as trustee
for the full value plus interest. Governor Mike Leavitt's
office and the Utah Geological Survey has estimated that the
net present value of the coal underlying the Kaiparowits Coal
Basin on the school lands alone is between $640 million and
$1.1 billion.
The National Education Association Legislative Platform has
a plank to protect land set aside to support schools. There
are 22 states that have trust lands (Alaska, Arizona,
Arkansas, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Louisiana,
Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North
Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, Utah,
Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming).
The energy in the Kaiparowits Coal Basin represents the
largest untapped energy reserve in the continental United
States. This is not just a Utah issue; this issue is a
national issue, especially with the recent power outages on
the west coast.
Inclusion of the Kaiparowits Coal Basin in the proposal has
an enormous fiscal impact on the taxpayers of approximately
$6 billion to $9 billion in lost royalty.
Designation of 1.8 million acres is not necessarily a pro-
environmental position as the coal from the Kaiparowits is
among the cleanest coal with the lowest sulfur content. At
this time, 90% of the canyons of the Escalante are already in
the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. The remaining 10%
are near the town of Escalante and are in current wilderness
study areas.
The coal resources are NOT located on the Kaiparowits
Plateau. The coal resources are located in the Kaiparowits
Coal Basin to the west of the plateau.
The Kaiparowits Coal Basin is not pristine. Within 2 miles
radius there are 36 miles of publicly maintained roads, an
air strip, drill holes, a previously mined coal site,
numerous other mining sites, fences and cattle watering
holes.
The Kaiparowits Plateau is composed of towering cliffs and
spectacular, stark scenery. On the other hand, the
Kaiparowits Coal Basin has been described an undulating grey
terrain. Parts of ``Planet of the Apes'' were filmed there.
There is a middle ground. Development of the coal resources
can occur under the ground with the mine portal occupying
only 40 acres of the surface, about .004% of the Kaiparowits
Coal Basin. Citizens can continue to enjoy the Canyons of the
Escalante and the Kaiparowits Plateau under the protection of
a National Recreation Area and wilderness study areas.
Improvement of the existing road would eliminate the need for
additional road construction.
____
Resolution in Support of An Exchange of Utah School Trust Lands for
Federal Lands in the Smoky Hollow Area of Kane County, Utah
(By The Utah Public Education Coalition)
Whereas, Under the Utah Enabling Act the federal government
granted to the state certain sections of the public domain,
now known as School Trust lands, to be used exclusively for
generating revenue to support Utah's public education system;
and
Whereas, These School Trust lands are scattered and
isolated parcels which are now totally surrounded within a
larger matrix of federal lands, and management of the
surrounding federal lands by the federal government for non-
economic purposes is in direct conflict with the state's
fiduciary responsibility to create revenue from these trust
lands for the state's public education system, and that such
federal land management conflicts are in direct violation of
the grant made by the United States government to the State
of Utah; and
Whereas, Utah School Trust lands located within the
Kaiparowits and Alton coalfields of southern Utah contain
hundreds of millions of recoverable tons of high-grade
bituminous coal, enough to supply all the electrical power
requirements for the entire state of Utah for the next 100
years at present rates of consumption; and
Whereas, This coal reserve constitutes one of the most
important sources of future revenue for Utah's School Trust
and shall be protected by the State now and forever in the
future; and
Whereas, Most of these School Trust coal reserves are
scattered throughout federally designated wilderness study
areas in the interior of the Kaiparowits coalfield or in
areas of the Alton coalfield designated by the federal
government as ``unsuitable for mining'' because of proximity
to the viewshed from Bryce Canyon National Park; and
Whereas, These federal non-use designations prevent the
development of the inheld School Trust resources for the
support of the schools within these areas; and
Whereas, The development of underground coal deposits by
modern underground mining methods requires large blocks of
contiguous acreage; and
Whereas, It is the responsibility of the State of Utah to
assure the beneficiaries of the Utah school trust that in the
future the federal government will be required to provide
just and adequate compensation for any defacto takings of any
and all School Trust assets within the Kaiparowits/Alton
coalfields resulting from any federal action or land
designation which effectively renders inheld trust lands
incapable of providing revenue to Utah's education system as
mandated by the Utah Enabling Act; and
Whereas, Present and future management conflicts between
the Utah School Trust and the federal government could be
quickly, easily and permanently resolved to the mutual
benefit of all parties by simply trading School Trust coal
resources within federal wilderness study areas/unsuitability
areas for federal coal resources of equal value located
outside of these designated areas; and
Whereas, Such an exchange would allow the Utah School Trust
to provide long term economic benefits to the state's
education system as required by law while allowing the
federal government the ability to manage its land in
accordance with non-economic objectives (wilderness values,
national park viewsheds, etc.) and thereby avoid serious, and
inevitable, future land use conflicts between the federal
government and the Utah School Trust involving the
Kaiparowits/Alton areas; and
[[Page S10831]]
Whereas, Andalex Resources is now proposing an underground
coal mine on existing federal and school trust leases located
in the Smoky Hollow area at the southern tip of the
Kaiparowits coalfield, and the federal government has
formally and officially determined that this area clearly and
obviously does not qualify for wilderness designation; and
Whereas, The state of Utah Division of Oil, Gas and Mining
has approved the Smoky Hollow Mine Permit Application Package
and has determined that the mine can be constructed, operated
and reclaimed in accordance with all necessary state and
federal environmental protection laws and regulations; and
Whereas, The Utah Public Education Coalition, the Utah
School Trust Administration, the Utah Association of
Counties, and the Utah State Legislature have gone on record
in support of responsible development of the Smoky Hollow
coal reserves as is now being proposed by Andalex; therefore
be it
Resolved, That the Utah Public Education Coalition hereby
reaffirms its strong support for responsible development of
the Smoky Hollow coal resources as proposed by Andalex; and
be it further
Resolved, That the Utah Public Education Coalition supports
and advocated an exchange of scattered School Trust coal
lands located within the Kaiparowits wilderness study areas
and the Alton unsuitability area for a block of land located
in the Smoky Hollow area which could be developed as part of
the Smoky Hollow underground coal mining operation; and be it
further
Resolved, That the Utah Public Education Coalition urges
the Board of Trustees of the School and Institutional Trust
Lands Administration, the Utah Governor's office, and Utah's
congressional delegation to jointly petition the US
Department of Interior to expedite this exchange on an equal-
value basis, subject to valid existing rights, as being in
the best and highest interest of Utah's public education
system and the people of the state of Utah and the United
States.
Linda M. Sarkinson, Utah PTA; Brent Thurie, Utah School
Superintendents Association; Mossi W. White, Utah
School Boards Association; W. Lee Glad, Utah
Association of Elementary School Principals; Janet A.
Cannon, Utah State Board of Education; Phil Oyler, Utah
Association of Secondary School Principals; Scott W.
Bean, Utah State Office of Education; Kelly Atkinson,
Utah School Employees Association; Phyllis Sorensen,
Utah Education Association.
____________________