OCR Text |
Show MA MiiG!te on OH, ed the lands, the government and the Air Force would have to come to the state and work very closely with them before be-fore they could do anything with regard to the MX. I think they would be saying, 'How can we work together,' rather than telling us what to do. And that's just another an-other good argument as to why we need to control our own destiny like the 37 states east of the 100th meridian. QUESTION: Senator Hatch some outdoor writers have called your Sagebrush Re- . bellion bill, a fand grab, and they say that giving title of public lands to ' the states will deny sportsmen' and other citizens access to recreational re-creational lands. Would the bill restrict access, and would you comment on the charge that It is a land grab? SENATOR HATCH: First of all, my bill would protect sportsmen a lot more than present law. Under the present pres-ent Organic Act, the U.S. can dispose of any land which it feels will serve the national na-tional interest. Under my bill they can't do that. As a m atter of fact, it should be clear to anyone who might go to the trouble to read the bill that the statutory protection from any loss of public access ac-cess is stronger in the proposed state ownership and management framework, the same is the pase if one goes to the bother to exam -ine the modern history of . state public land manage-' ment practices in the western west-ern states. Utah, for instance, in-stance, stopped disposing of state owned land a full decade dec-ade before their federal counterparts. So, the fact of the matter is, my bill is . much more protective than the present federal law tin ' control. The purpose of my bill is to bring the control of our . lands back to the state where we think we will have better consideration given by our own state officials to whom we can get in the election process, or who we can make more responsive to our needs. It does not provide for any transfer of these lands to private sources or to corporations. So to make a long story short, every time some of those people who wouldn't have the land in the hands of the states under un-der any circumstances get frightened and the polls 'have reason to threaten them because the polls show that people are with us - but any time they get frightened they start raising these . bugaboos that just aren't true, showing the ignorance that they have of the bills that have been filed, and particularly par-ticularly my bill, which goes a long way towards protecting protect-ing all parties, but giving the power to the state rather rath-er than the federal government. govern-ment. QUESTION: Reportsfrom Central Utah indicate that some residents think government gov-ernment officials are treat-ing treat-ing MX as a certainty, regardless re-gardless if local residents and leaders approve or disapprove. dis-approve. Is the project a foregone -conclusion at this time.? HATCH: I think it is. I don't think it's a question of if, but when we have the MX. I think the two . main questions that still remain re-main are the impact questions ques-tions and the deployment mode. And I think they'll have to be resolved. I did not like the racetrack system. sys-tem. I do admit that the grid system does have potential, po-tential, and I think it could be explained to the people of Utah better. MX is essential es-sential to our national security, se-curity, and I believe that the folks in Utah are just as concerned, if not more so, about national security and patriotism than any other people in this country. QUESTION: Do you think it will be in Nevada and Utah? HATCH: I'm not sure, but I think so. I think they have concluded that this is the best place to deploy it, and since they own all the federal lands they don't particularly par-ticularly have to consult with us, in their opinion. That's another good reason for the Sagebrush Rebellion. Even though some of us may be for the MX because we know its essential, on the other hand, we think that if the state own- |