[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.

                          ____________________