PHOENIX -- Utah Gov. Mike Leavitt is absolutely convinced the vast majority of Americans -- some 70 percent to 80 percent of them -- are already somewhere in the middle of the political spectrum when it comes to environmental issues.
They want clean air, clean water and open space, but they are not caught up in the emotional debates that define environmental extremes.Leavitt's problem may be defining what the middle is.
After two days of roundtable discussions at the Environmental Summit on the West in Phoenix, sponsored last week by the Western Governors Association, Leavitt listened as folks on all sides of environmental debates championed the wisdom of Enlibra, the Leavitt-inspired environmental doctrine that emphasizes "balance and stewardship" over endless contention.
Representatives of the Sierra Club, Wilderness Society and Audubon Society were all talking about the need to come to the middle. Rural county commissioners were doing the same.
But it was clear they were not talking about the same thing. "When they say balance, I hope that means more environmental protection, not less," said Sandy Bahr of the Sierra Club.
San Juan County Commissioner Ty Lewis had a decidedly different perspective. Rural county governments have for years been moving to the middle at the same time environmental groups have moved further to the extreme, he said.
"I think the middle has disappeared altogether and only the extremes are left," Lewis said. "They don't want to negotiate.
They don't want these problems resolved."
Leavitt heard plenty of talk on both extremes at the environmental summit. Most of the opposition to Enlibra was subtle, reflected in statements by various participants about the need to include policy statements on preserving private property rights, protecting multiple use of public lands and fostering the economic health of the rural West. On the other side, conservationists wondered why the Enlibra policy principles do not specifically mention environmental protection.
Leavitt and the other Western governors were careful not to allow the summit to be politicized by specific environmental issues or problems. They want to keep the discussion on basic principles that can be used to solve problems through negotiation, not the problems themselves.
The real issue, Leavitt told the summit-goers, is about finding balance. Balance between housing needs and preserving open space, between jobs and environmental preservation, between rural and urban, between state and federal governments.
"It is not imperative you believe (the principles of Enlibra)," Leavitt said, while adding a subtle warning that 70 to 80 percent of Americans do believe in balance and it might be prudent if all sides come to the bargaining table to resolve the litany of contentious environmental problems. Or they can be left out.
Kim Christy, vice president of public policy for the Utah Farm Bureau, agreed that farmers and ranchers stand to benefit from a process focused on negotiation rather than litigation. Christy points to the success of the Utah Wildlife Landowner Alliance, which brought together government agencies, hunting and fishing interests, wildlife advocates and agricultural interests to address historically sensitive issues involving Utah wildlife.
"Utah farmers have been moving to the middle on environmental issues," he said, adding there is still room for further movement. "However, I would emphasize that you have to have a healthy rural economy before you can afford the luxury of environmental protection. Environmental protection at the expense of vital economies is a failure."
Conservationists, meanwhile, are arguing that you cannot have healthy economies without environmental protection.
"I am absolutely willing to sit down at the table with environmentalists as equal shareholders and negotiate solutions," said Rep. Dennis Iverson, R-Washington and a Utah rancher. "I am willing to come to the middle if they are, but I am not confident they will. It would be good if they could see the contributions of farmers and ranchers to the public lands, and I am sure there are things we could be doing different."
Garfield County Commissioner Louise Liston took a more pragmatic approach. If rural county commissioners and land owners don't come to the bargaining table, then decisions will be made for them, and chances are they aren't going to like the outcome.
One of the more contentious issues arising from Enlibra could become exactly who should be at the bargaining table. Should conservationists have an equal vote with elected county commissioners? Or should the views of unelected federal land managers or state environmental regulators carry equal weight with someone who owns the land or the city governments whose heritage is tied to that land? And where do state legislatures fit into the whole negotiation process?
"I am encouraged that so many (state and federal government officials) are here and buying into Enlibra," Liston said. "I believe if we can just get people talking, we will realize we are not that far apart. I have always believed a balance could be achieved that takes into consideration both our immediate needs and the needs of future generations."
Leavitt, who developed the Enlibra principles in collaboration with Oregon Gov. John Kitzhaber, has already ordered all state government entities to begin implementing the doctrine. And representatives of virtually every federal environmental management agency were in Phoenix pledging their support of Enlibra concepts on a federal level. Dozens of groups representing various public-private partnerships were there trumpeting the success of various programs that have been applying Enlibra principles for years.
But how and who is brought to the table remained unanswered at the summit. Changes to environmental laws are needed, some say, to accommodate negotiated settlements so the results don't end up being overturned by judges. Federal regulators at the local level have to be given the authority to enter into agreements without the prospect of bureaucrats in Washington rejecting the compromise.
And somehow conservationists and those who make their living off public lands must get past generations of antagonism, mistrust and litigation.
"There is still a great deal of mistrust and skepticism on both sides," observed Kitzhaber. "If indeed it is a shared doctrine, it has to be shared by the groups in conflict."