Friday, May 26, 2006

CIEDRA's land transfer economics are misleading

Guest opinion by Carole King


By CAROLE KING

Singer-songwriter Carole King is a resident of Custer County, east of Stanley.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Congressman Mike Simpson's statements regarding "the 3500 acres I am proposing to transfer" are perplexing to me, and, I suspect, to the growing number of citizens and the 42 conservation organizations who oppose the Central Idaho Economic Development Act (that he is sponsoring). The number confirmed by the congressman's office is closer to 7,000 acres, though the exact acreage has been harder to pin down than a tarp in a windstorm.

Congressman Simpson says he's okay with "transferring" the public lands in CIEDRA because it's a "locally developed" bill. Actually, comments from many local people were ignored. Stanley residents expressed strong disapproval of the giveaway (euphemized as "transfer") of the Stanley acreage. Local people have worked long and hard to ensure that the millions of taxpayer dollars that have protected the Sawtooth National Recreation Area since 1972 are not wasted. Appropriately, they want every acre of the SNRA kept in the SNRA.

I was present at a meeting in Challis when local business people and economic planners told Congressman Simpson that they didn't want the land, along with all its bureaucratic headaches and lag time before it might ever bring in any short-term money—if indeed it ever would, given the added cost of providing services to the new homeowners.

"What we really need," said leading local citizens, "are direct appropriations."

If our congressman wants to help Custer County, as a member of the House Budget and Appropriations Committee, he should apply himself to securing direct appropriations that aren't tied to wilderness.

Locally, 14 Idaho-based conservation groups oppose CIEDRA. Only two support it. Contrary to the claims of supporters, CIEDRA is not worth all the tradeoffs. The wilderness in CIEDRA is substandard. It undermines the Wilderness Act. In testimony at a hearing in Washington on Oct. 27, 2005, the Forest Service objected to provisions in CIEDRA that are inconsistent with the Wilderness Act. Two significant objections: (1) under some circumstances, all terrain vehicles (ATVs) will be allowed in CIEDRA's wilderness; (2) among the approximately 550,000 acres that CIEDRA will permanently lock in for motorized use are BLM wilderness study areas and Forest Service recommended wilderness.

If our congressman wants to protect wilderness, I encourage him to do so in a separate, clean science-based (of which there is no mention in CIEDRA) wilderness bill that designates wilderness consistent with the Wilderness Act.

I understand that Congressman Simpson was hoping to accommodate many diverse interests, but CIEDRA is the wrong approach. It gives away public land, establishes substandard wilderness, weakens the Wilderness Act and encourages and expands motorized use. We can do better.




 Local Weather 
Search archives:


Copyright © 2024 Express Publishing Inc.   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy
All Rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part in any form or medium without express written permission of Express Publishing Inc. is prohibited. 

The Idaho Mountain Express is distributed free to residents and guests throughout the Sun Valley, Idaho resort area community. Subscribers to the Idaho Mountain Express will read these stories and others in this week's issue.