"Frightening and incredibly arrogant," "blatantly political," "repugnant to our system of government."
Those were some of the reactions from Utah officials and staffers to President Bill Clinton's proposal to designate up to 1.8 million acres of federal land in southern Utah as a national monument - without consent or input from Utah representatives.Citing various sources, the Washington Post Saturday reported that Clinton is considering using the relatively little-known 1906 Antiquities Act to designate land between Kanab and Capitol Reef National Park as a national monument, preventing most commercial development in the area.
The proposed 1.8 million acres is slightly smaller than Yellowstone Park.
Rep. Jim Hansen, R-Utah, said the move would probably stop the Dutch firm Andalex Resources from developing a giant coal mine it wants on the Kaiparowits Plateau. Andalex already has coal mine lease rights on the land, but administration officials believe the monument designation would authorize them to block road permits to get the coal out.
Hansen is chairman of the House subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Lands.
"This is the first time I've seen that a president would use a 1906 act and make a suggestion without even having the courtesy to talk to the governor, the (congressional) delegation, whoever," Hansen said.
Hansen added that the administration, in effect, is making an end run around Utah officials' opinions in order to score points with environmentalists in an election year.
"Never in 36 years as an elected official have I seen anyone as bla- tantly political as Mr. Clinton," he said.
Ted Stewart, executive director of the Utah Department of Natural Resources, also came down hard on Clinton for proposing the uni- lateral move.
"It's frightening that such an arbitrary decision could be made without any input from the people who were elected by the people of the state of Utah," he said. "Frightening and incredibly arrogant."
Stewart said he would consult with Gov. Mike Leavitt Monday to see what might be done to ward off the move, but Hansen's not waiting that long to determine strategy. He said the proposal could be chal- lenged in court or prevented legislatively.
"A legislative rider on any number of bills, and we could stop this thing dead in its tracks," said Hansen's district director Steve Petersen. "It's repugnant to our system of government."
If the move results in halting development of the Andalex mine, it could cost Utah's education system. In 1993, state trust lands offi- cials estimated Utah's school program would benefit by $20 million in mining royalties since 12 acres of the planned 40-acre mine are state trust lands.
Trust lands were set aside when Utah became a state to generate money for public schools, primarily through the development of natural resources.
Three years ago, Andalex officials estimated the mine would contribute about $90 million annually to Utah's economy when the mine is at full production.
The significance of Clinton's proposal is not lost on Utah's env- ronmental community. Giving federal protection to as much land as Clinton proposes would go a long way toward their goal to preserve 5.7 million acres of federal land in Utah as wilderness.
Utah's congressional delegation supports designating as wilderness only slightly more than one-third of that.
Ivan Weber, a longtime Utah Sierra Club activist, said Clinton's ends probably justify the means.
"The congressional delegation has done enough end runs, so I think that's justice," he said, citing the Snow Basin land swap proposal as an example. "Turnabout's fair play as far as I'm concerned."
Weber said he was delighted Clinton is considering the Kaiparowits Plateau for the monument designation, since he says it is rich in the antiquities the 1906 act is meant to protect.
"There's no way the Kaiparowits Plateau and east to Colorado could fail to justify that move," he said. "I like the idea. Whether Clinton's move is technically, mechanically, legally the right move or not, we'll have to look at it."
Indeed, almost everybody is saying they're going to have to "look at it" - the Antiquities Act, that is. Most Utah officials have barely heard of it, if at all, and don't know what powers it gives the administration.
The act authorizes the president, "in his discretion, to declare by public proclamation historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest that are situated upon the lands owned or controlled by the government of the United States to be national monuments."
The Washington Post reported that presidents have used their au- thority under the act 66 times. Many of the nation's most famous parks, including the Grand Canyon, Zion, Bryce Canyon and Arches, were originally protected as national monuments. President Carter used the law in 1978 to protect 56 million acres of Alaska land pending congressional approval two years later of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act.
Whatever its history, Utah officials object to the president inter- preting the act's administrative powers so broadly. Even Hansen's Democratic opponent in the 1st District race, Greg Sanders, was cautious in commenting on the move.
"In an abstract sense, it is unfortunate if they have bypassed local elected officials," he said. "On the other hand, if you were sitting in the White House and saw who you had in the delegation, you'd know it wouldn't do any good to try to work through them. The Utah delegation really is anti-environment and anti-doing what's good for Utah."
The Washington Post quoted a senior White House official as saying the monument designation "is not done yet," and others also cau- tioned that Clinton may yet decide against it. Timing is important, the officials said, because Congress isn't finished with the Interior De- partment budget and, as Petersen surmised, block the designation with a rider on an appropriations bill.
Deseret News staff writers Lois M. Collins and Marjorie Cortez contributed to this story.