DEEP DIVIDE

(2 of 3)
Despite the otherworldly beauty of the place, President Clinton's decision to single it out for protection fell like a hammer blow in Utah. Segments of the local economy were already faltering, and with the ranching and logging industries falling on hard times, mining always seemed like a promising alternative. The coal from just one site in the monument could earn the state $3 billion. An additional $1 billion would flow into Utah's education system under a century-old provision that requires the state to use a percentage of all revenue from public lands to build and maintain schools.

Putting these riches beyond reach amounts to a "felonious assault" on Utah students, says Phyllis Sorenson, president of the state's education association. According to environmentalists, however, that is the only way to protect the land. Coal mining requires not just mines but also related aboveground structures, such as office buildings and parking lots. In addition, coal mined at the Grand Staircase would have to be hauled to the nearest port--in this case Los Angeles--in as many as 400 truckloads a day over highways that in some cases do not yet exist. Building such a modern-day Silk Road might cost up to $100 million.

Of course that outlay seems insignificant compared with $4 billion in coal revenues, but whether even so princely a sum is a fair price for Utah's mineral riches is uncertain. The developer that was closest to signing a mining agreement before Clinton's announcement--and the one with whom Utahns still want to cut a deal--is the Andalex mining company. Recently, though, the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance and other environmental groups have publicized the fact that Andalex is based in the Netherlands. The net profits from any dig--beyond the $4 billion--would thus not even remain in the U.S., never mind Utah. The coal itself would also be headed overseas, mostly to the Pacific Rim.

The Clinton Administration, citing these revelations, remains committed to protecting the disputed land. It promises to compensate local mining interests by swapping federal lands of equal value for those that lie within the monument. Utah Senator Bob Bennett sniffs at this, insisting that there is no land of equal value. Bennett is also unimpressed with Clinton's promise that all the current uses of the region, except mining, would be unchanged by its new status. The Senator wants that pledge written into law. "We'll see how sincere they are," he says.

Many in Utah are similarly unpersuaded by the suggestion that they will benefit from an increase in free-spending tourists. Rancher Dell LeFevre, whose land is surrounded by the monument, was told by an entrepreneur that he could get $5 million if he sold his spread to a developer. "I don't give a damn if they offer me $10 million," he asserts. "I just want to be a cowboy."

Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt has taken pains to respond to sentiments like this. Last month Interior officials flew to Utah to begin consulting with the Governor and other officials on how to protect both the monument and the local economy. Such joint planning has rarely been tried before in land-use disputes, and Babbitt has high hopes for it. "This is a brand-new model," he says. "We want to live together out there."