The time to unite is upon us. It looks as though Moab and the surrounding red rock areas may soon be shut down to vehicular recreation for good if the below bill passes. Check it out.
This is a bill in the U.S. Congress originating in the Senate ("S."). A bill must be passed by both the Senate and House and then be signed by the President before it becomes law.
Bill numbers restart from 1 every two years. Each two-year cycle is called a session of Congress. This bill was created in the 111th Congress, in 2009-2010.
The titles of bills are written by the bill's sponsor and are a part of the legislation itself.
2009-2010 America's Red Rock Wilderness Act of 2009
A bill to designate as wilderness certain Federal portions of the red rock canyons of the Colorado Plateau and the Great Basin Deserts in the State of Utah for the benefit of present and future generations of people in the United States.
Sponsored by U.S. Senator, (Illinois) Richard Durbin, this bill could end any chance of future generations having the ability of seeing the beautiful terrain surrounding Moab by Jeep or other types of 4x4 vehicle.
From our Friends at SEMA:
E&E: 10/2/09
PUBLIC LANDS: Red Rocks wilderness bill meets stiff opposition (10/02/2009)
Patrick Reis, E&E reporter
House Democrats say they may finally have the support to pass a massive Utah wilderness bill they have pushed for two decades, but if they do, it will be despite concerns from the White House and furious opposition from Utah's congressional delegation.
H.R. 1925 would designate more than 9 million acres as protected wilderness -- including Desolation Canyon, the Grand Staircase-Escalante area and Glen Canyon. The bill, first introduced in 1989, had its first hearing in Congress since 1995 yesterday in the House National Parks, Forests and Public Lands Subcommittee.
The land in question is the subject of an ongoing struggle over management priorities. Environmental groups insist that only a wilderness designation can protect the area from the creep of oil and gas development and from thousands of miles of off-highway vehicle trails.
"Illegal trails often find their way onto BLM route maps due to pressure from off-road vehicle groups," said Peter Metcalf, vice president of the Outdoor Industry Association. "Just a few of these routes, once established, can disqualify thousands of acres from future wilderness consideration."
Proponents of oil and gas drilling -- as well as state officials banking on revenue from royalties to meet state needs -- insist that the energy deposits can be safely developed without compromising the area's scenic value.
The measure ignores the needs of state residents in favor of a blanket conservation mandate, Utah Lt. Gov. Greg Bell said yesterday at a hearing of the National Parks, Forests and Public Lands Subcommittee.
The bill's backers have not "sought to balance the laudable goal of preserving our stunning scenic resources against the nation's needs for wildlife conservation, recreational pursuits and energy," Bell said.
Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-N.Y.), longtime sponsor of the "America's Red Rocks Wilderness Act," said the bill is necessary precisely because the regional balance has too often tipped toward exploitation.
"This bill was developed in response to a Bureau of Land Management wilderness inventory that significantly undervalued [the region's] natural resources," Hinchey said. "There has been a desire to push short-term private interest over long-term public interest."
Hinchey cited Energy Information Agency figures saying the lands held less than a few days worth of oil and a few weeks worth of gas -- less than 1 percent of domestic oil reserves and less than 2 percent of gas reserves. The terrain above them, he said, contains "some of the great landscapes the world has ever seen."
Proponents see hope; Interior sees alternatives
The bill has been a perennial nonstarter in Congress since it was first introduced by Utah Rep. Wayne Owens (D) in 1989, but Democrats say this session could be the one.
"It's certainly not going to be easy," said Hinchey spokesman Jeff Lieberson. But "the fact that there's a strong Democratic majority, that there's a Democratic administration and Interior Department that recognize the value of wilderness designations, coupled with the fact that there are 146 co-sponsors for the bill," makes them believe we can get it passed.
The companion Senate bill (S. 799) from Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) has 21 co-sponsors.
But administrative support may be difficult to come by, and Utah's entire delegation is dead set in opposition.
Rather than create 9.3 million acres of wilderness in one bill, Interior yesterday suggested a series of smaller measures.
Bureau of Land Management Director Robert Abbey noted that the agency had determined that much of the land had "wilderness-like" characteristics, but he said the administration would prefer an approach that would allow Interior to make more detailed assessments and foster more constructive dialogue. "I think we would support that approach," Abbey said.
The Utah delegation might support such an approach as well, but they certainly want no part of the current legislation.
Utah Republican Sens. Orrin Hatch and Bob Bennett, joined Utah Reps. Jim Matheson (D), Rob Bishop (R) and Jason Chaffetz (R) in bashing the bill, which they painted as the work of outsiders pushing a special interest agenda without regard for the needs of Utah residents.
Some of the lands proposed by the bill should be designated for wilderness, the members said, but it should be done in a piecemeal process that builds consensus among local property owners and industries.
Bishop insisted any wilderness package should not stop the state from developing oil and natural gas reserves, and said doing so would hamstring Utah's mineral sector, increase unemployment and take away badly needed revenue for public schools.
In its current form, Bishop said, H.R. 1925 is "coming from Washington and crammed down the throat of the people of Utah."
Hinchey disputed that notion, saying federal lands belonged to all Americans and that all Americans should have a voice in how they are managed.
But for Hatch, that argument fell short of justifying a bill that would disproportionately affect Utah residents but did not have the support of a single member of the state's delegation.
"In law, and in policymaking, stakeholders are not always equal," Hatch said. "Voices of stakeholders most impacted should be given the greatest weight. This legislation turns that principle on its head."
Other wilderness bills fare better
The administration did express support for several other wilderness bills during yesterday's hearing.
BLM's Abbey backed two pieces of legislation intended to conserve Oregon's wild places. H.R. 2888 from Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) would permanently protect the Devil's Staircase area -- nearly 30,000 acres of forest in Oregon's Coast Range -- as federal wilderness.
A separate bill, H.R. 2781, from Rep. Kurt Schrader (D-Ore.), would protect stretches of Oregon's Molalla under the Wild and Scenic River Act.
BLM supported the bill with minor modifications. Abbey suggested the act designate the river as "recreational," one of the three possible designations under the act. In current form, the bill does not specify a designation.
BLM also supported H.R. 86, which would incorporate scenic islands and rocks off the coast of Orange County into the BLM's California Coastal National Monument.