GREENS STILL SPLIT ON CIEDRA

How Much Will We Give Up to Have a New Wilderness?

By Bill Schneider, 7-25-06

A focal point on the ongoing Quid Pro Quo Wilderness debate, the Central Idaho Economic Development and Recreation Act, (CIEDRA) is still moving forward, slowly but contentiously. Greens continue to debate how much they're willing to give up to get a new Wilderness, the Boulder-White Clouds, with many strongly believing CIEDRA gives up too much.

CIEDRA sponsor Mike Simpson (R-ID) and environmental group backers, such as the Idaho Conservation League and The Wilderness Society, have attempted to find a middle ground among stakeholders and end the Gem State's twenty-six-year Wilderness drought. But is it working?

On July 19, the House Resources Committee passed CIEDRA and cleared the way for a full vote in the U.S. House of Representatives, which will probably happen in the next few days. In the meantime, retired Forest Service recreation specialist Scott Phillips has joined the chorus of vocal opponents.

Phillips wrote a strongly worded guest editorial in the Idaho Mountain Express called Stand Up and Oppose CIEDRA Wilderness Bill. In his op-ed piece, he insists that CIEDRA is "a bad deal for Idaho" and has many "flawed components," such as:

1. Giving away 5,152 acres of public land, including part of the Sawtooth National Recreation Area, to local governing bodies, some of which could end up developed for trophy homes.

2. Only protecting about half of the roadless country in the area around the two mountain ranges. What is not established as Wilderness would be released from wilderness-study-area status, possibly opening it to resource development and motorized recreation.

3. Allowing mechanized equipment within Wilderness to fight wildfires.

4. No extra money to manage the complex compromise embodied in the bill, placing extra burden on already burdened land managers.

5. Water rights "wrongly transferred" from the federal government to the state.

6. No guarantee that grazing allotments would be bought out.

7. Inappropriate special privileges and use levels locked in for outfitters.

In addition, Phillips asserts, "The Idaho congressman's bill would create three islands of sub-standard 'paper wilderness' transected by motorized corridors."

In summary, Phillips claims "CIEDRA is environmentally suspect and fiscally unsound."

In moving CIEDRA one step closer to reality, the House committee increased the size of the Boulder-White Clouds Wilderness to 315,215 acres, up 15,204 acres from earlier drafts of the bill, and axed the $7 million that would have gone to buy out grazing allotments.

"It was "a big, significant step ... no small deal," said one of the bill's proponents, Idaho Conservation League Executive Director Rick Johnson, who pointed out that this is the farthest an Idaho wilderness bill has made it in Washington, D.C., since the Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness Area was designated in 1980.

Idaho Director for The Wilderness Society Craig Gherke also said he's pleased with Simpson's progress. "The fact that it went through without a dissention helps a lot getting it to the House floor," he said. "I'm not going to downplay that this is controversial, but it certainly helped for it to come out of the committee the way that it did."

On the other side of the green aisle, singer-songwriter Carole King, a proponent and lobbyist for the Rockies Prosperity Act, an expansive West-wide wilderness proposal, is upset with some environmentalists' willingness to support the bill.

"They're getting millions of dollars to pass this bill and call it a win for wilderness, when it's a loss for wilderness," she told the Idaho Mountain Express. "Idaho Conservation League and The Wilderness Society ... apparently have no line where they say, 'Enough is enough.' It's shameful that groups with 'conservation' and 'wilderness' as their middle names are promoting such a harmful bill as good for wilderness."

Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.