OCR Text |
Show 8A Emery County Progress Castle Dale, Utah Tuesday November 5, 2002 Commentary Ylh) Hy ALEX ? aMim)) fundamental rigid of citizenship," elected to kill Socrates for voicing EPSTEIN very Flection Day politicians, intellectuals, and activists propagate a seemingly patriotic tail utterly idea: the notion that our most important rilit ami the source of America's greatness is the right to vote. According to former 1'reNldcnt Kill Clinton, the right to vote Is "tht1 most fundamental right of citizenship;" it is "the heart and soul ol our democracy," says Senator John McCain Such statements are regarded as hut consider their uneontroversial is truly our If voting implications, most fundamental right, then all other rights Including free speech, property, even life arc contingent on and revocable by the whims of the voting public (or their elected officials). America, on this v iew, is a society based not mi Individual rights, lad on unlimited majority ruli like Ancient Alliens, where the populace, CMrcislng"lhemost unpopular ideas or modern-da- y Zimbabwe, where the democratically elected Kolicrt Mugabe has seized the property of the nation's while farmers and brought the nation to the verge of starvation or ( lermany in KI32. w hen the people democratically elected the Nazi Dirty, Including future Chancellor Adolph Hitler. Would anyone dare claim that America is thus fundumcnlully similar to these regimes, and dial It is perfectly acceptable to kill controversial philosophers or to exterminate six million dews, so long as It Is done by popular vote? Contrary to popular rhetoric, America was founded, not as a "democracy," but as a constitutional republic a political structure under which the government Is hound hy a written constitution to the task of protecting Individual rights. "Democracy" does not mean a system that holds public elections for government toe officials; It means u system In which a majority vote rules everything and everyone, and In which the individual thus has no rights. In a democracy, observed James Madison In The Federalist hipers, "there Is nothing to check the Inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious Individual. I lence It is thut such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention and have ever been found Incompatible with personal security or the rights of property." The right to vote derives from the recognition of man as an autonomous, rational being, who Is responsible for his own life and who should therefore freely choose the people he authorizes to represent him In the government of his country. That autonomy Is contradicted if a majority of voters Is allowed to do whatever it wishes to the Individual citizen. The right to vote Is not a sanction for a gang to deprive other Individuals of their freedom, Kallter, Public Land Appears to be about Water does care about this Issue, Just as they deeply care about grazing rights; but the main topic of Interest In all these efforts Is water, or more specifically water rights. Kmery County's master plan lists maintain-ingwntrights as the number two g behind the priority-jus- t a of rural lifestyle. maintaining goal While water rights have always been a concern in the arid west, they are of added Interest to counties such us Kmery that utilize water upstream of potential conserv ation designations such as Wilderness. In other words the Issue of Wilderness and water rights becomes even more important If the potential Wilderness Hiloinistmim from where you utilize water. If you are downstream of an area with special protection then your use isnt affected by any federal reserved w ater rigid. Downstream use doesn't Impact or alter the flow of water in the protected Several years ago was In the Salt bake City office lobby of a wilderness advocacy group. well-know- n As I waited to conduct an Interview I leaned back in my chair and began to peruse a copy of the hook I loir .Vo t to hr ( 'o irnl: Lirrstocl, (Intzhw 011 1nhlir I, ami that w as available on a nearby shelf. After a few minutes my er over-archin- reading was interrupted by an excited staffer who burst out of his office announcing that they were going to have a meeting on the on problem of ( )ff-- I I ighway-Vchiclpublic laud and this topic was, he proclaimed several times, "the next idg thing." An hour or so later when I left, a mcctingvvns being held in the backroom on this next big thing." ( )bviously vehicle access is a "big thing on public lauds. Vehicle access has been a central theme for decades and during the past few years has become even more of a dominant Issue. In Kmery County the increasingly contentious debate over a Kan Rafael National Monument often focuses on vehicle access. Many now spaper and radio ads directed at defeating the National Monument proposal are funded and directed by Ol IV interests in and outside the county. But despite the prominence of the vehicle access issue. I am going to suggest that on western public lands in general, and in the San Rafael Swell in particular, the real Issue is water. Its rivers, not roads, that are the real driving force behind many land use designations and counterdesignations. And as usual Kmery County is an excellent Illustrative example. During the pust few years the Kmery ( 'ounty Public bunds Council has led the fight against large-scal- e Wilderness designation and worked longnnd difficult hours In developing first a National Heritage' proposal in tints, then a National Conservation Area proposal in 2000, and finally in 2002 a proposal to create a Nutionul Monument. II vou think that vehicle access Is the dominant motivation behind these efforts you would be wrong. Now area. What the string of Kmery County proposals is trying to do more than anything is to find u legislative or administrative vehicle to which they can attach desired water language so that any upstream uses in the county will not be Impacted by potential downstream conservation requirements In the San Rafael Swell. But, we may usk, what is all the fuss? Wouldn't any subsequent downstream rights be junior' to the senior upstream rights? The answ er to this Is yes. Rut tlds doesn't mean thut the junior rights would have no Impact on the more senior rights. ' return flow is used in power water prohibited by plant operations. Also, Isn't the installation of pressured irrigation such ns In Kerron a modification? Wouldn't this conserve water that could be stored in upstrenm reservoirs? Downstream rights could argue that this Is a modification and unused water should be released downstream-no- t a great Incentive for upstream conservation. The fear of downstream junior rights making life difficult for upstream users Is not without merit. stream dont misunderstund me, the KClLU JEFFREY O.DURRANT bVurs of county leaders focus on language In protective designations that would prohibit the expansion or modification of senior rights, bbr example, what if there Is a need to dredge1 Mill Site reservoir In order to restore diminished storage1 capacity? Junior rights could urgue that modification will ullow less flow downstream and Impuct them. Or perhaps a farmer wants to sell a right to the power company. This could be challenged since in agricultural uses there is often u return flow to the stream that adds to down or handout at the expense of the liberty and property of other Anterl-- , , cans, Our politicians promise, not to protect the basic rights spelled out In , the Declaration and the Constitution, , but to violate the rights of some people In order to benefit others. because a fret' society requires a certain type of government, It Is a means of Installing the officials w ho will safeguard the individual rights of each citizen. What makes America unique Is not that It has elections even dictatorships hold elections but that Its elections take place in a country' limited by the absolute principle of individual freedom. From our Today's politicians want subsidies for farmers by forcing to pay for them; prescription drugs for the elderly by forcing the to pay for them; housing for the homeless by forcing the to pay for It. The more "democratic" our government lu'eomes, the more we cannibalize our lllierty, ultimately to the detrl- meat of all. This Klectlon Day, therefore, we should reject those who wish to reduce our republic to mob rule. Instead, we should vote for those, to whatever extent they can bo found, who are defenders of the essence of non-farme- rs non-elder- ly Declaration of Independence, which upholds the "unalienable rights" of ss every Individual, among which are "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," to our Constitution, whose Kill of Rights protects freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the freedom of private property, respect for Individual liberty Is the essence of America and the root of her greatness. Unfortunately, with each passing Flection Day, too many Americans view elections less as a means to protect freedom, and more as a means to win some government favor flow, but In SUWA's Summer 2001 Newsletter an article on water rights in Wilder- 4) The monument would at least give us u voice In the plan. It would For the Monument It seems that both sides of the Issue are trying to accomplish the same thing. Both sides want loeul control and federal bureaucracy out of the picture. After a long hard look at the issue, and realizing that the people of Kmery (ounty do not want SUWA, the Sierra Club or any other extreme environmental groups dlctatlngthe future of Kmery County, nor do we want the eastern constituents dictating their ideology when they dont understand the local people, use of this land, or have a clue to what is reality here. All they know Is that they are on a "save the earth campaign and a feci good euphoria when they dump their excess Into the pot of the so called environmental ,. -- i to '' . certainly be a far greater benefit to us than that of the alternative. We would stand to gain tourism, federal funding and an Increase In awareness to our area. 5) We have the support of our local leaders, local lands council and the governor as well as the president. My vote Is for the monument. Pat Jonaa . Orangeville Against the Monument don't live In Kmery (ounty, but Ive worked there for 25 years. I buy pis and food there, and I spend a large portion of my spare time there. Ive hiked, backpacked and ridden I community coffers. ness states, "So If wilderness wider I have spent my entire life In this rights would be junior to existing and spent a big part of my county upstream rights, and downstream In hills hunting rocks w ith the youth users would not be affected at all, ulso enjoying while father, my why are wilderness water rights in the same and exploring camping Is the that needed? The principle I have hiked the area, hunted areas. public should have .some rights to the urea, and rode my ATV In this keep streams flowing In wilderness urea, Kittle did I know that some day areas. The public, In effect, deserves people would be fighting und arguing u place in line, even If It Is not ut the over this free land. More shocking Is head of the line." SUWA obviously the fact that people who live thouunderstands the role junior rights sands of miles from here are trying can play, a role feared by Kmery to dictate whether or not I can do avid river an As County leaders. 1 runner 1 would love to see more wuter those things that have tdways are at risk In freedoms My enjoyed. in the San Rafael River and Muddy ! am no outcome of issue. this the I Creek. But don't depend on these different than the majority of the river systems for my agricultural, In Kmery County when I say residents culinary, and industrial water needs-Kmer- y want we don't outside control of our County does. local lands. to Creatinga National Monument We are definitely between a rock secure Kmery Countys water rights a hard place here. Much is at and Is a messy business. First there Is and after a lot of deliberation stake the very vocal OHV crowd thut wants issue I came to this concluon the their issue" to be tlw agenda, an sion.: ugendu that often clashes with issues 1) The environmental community such as water concerns. Second Is Is a powerful arm. They have a lot of the risky assumption that a Nutionul with the law makers and they backers will Monument secure rather than put have tried to force wilderness andor added pressure on upstream rights. other environmental control down In Colorados Black Canyon of the our throats. The have stopped Kmery (Junnison the presence of a National Countys Public Lund Councils National Monument (later a Dirk) proposals to protect the land In such was used us the central reasoning or a way that we could still use the land impetus to secure river flows through and still protect it. In fact there Is a Black Canyon. National Monuments bill for the San Rafael to be wilderare looked on by many as special ness this very minute. designations that deserve added 2) Very little credit has been given preservation" of the environment. to our local leaders. Did we not vote The hope with a potential San In? Have our local county them Is Monument Rufael Swell Nutlomd and lands council commissioners that there will be language in the us down the river, sell to been trying proclamation that excludes a federal I read in the negative ads? 1 would us reserved water light us In President suggest that these people have spent Clinton's Grand Stulrcuse-Kscidunt- e endless hours and studied the issues Nutionul Monument that stated, This well. have been try ing to save They proclamation does not reserve water from land the very people that our us a matter of federal law," Sounds to take It away from us, 1 would want Is sentence the directly good, but suggest thut they have an insight into followed by: "1 direct the Secretary the issues that most of us don't to address in the management plan have fought a the extent to which water is necessary understand. They brave battle. 1 think they are to be for the proper care and management commended for the work they have of the objects of this monument and done. They have gotten the eastern the extent to which further action constituents attention und because to may be necessary pursuant they have become familiar with the fVderal or State law to assure the laws that protect us as well as those uvailability of water." Emery that heavy armed lobbyists impose countys desire is to Include stronger upon us, they should be the ones we denies a language that explicitly turn to for the solution to this federal reserve water right. problem. Water und special public land 3) 1 dont see an alternate plan for designations are closely connected, those that propose to stop the und whether it is Wilderness or any monument. With no plan, we have no of the recent Kmery County proposof succeeding. There are two chance als, water is and will be the driving here. Which one do monsters groat OHV factor. The closure1 of u favorite we let eat us that will be1 the kindest to Is to the while trail, county, important us? The red rock people have plans In not as important as securing water motion mid they wont stop until rights thut drive agriculture and a plan Is set In place by either either In industry in the area. the county's them or us. frustrated OHV riders take agenda secondary consideration farms and pow or plants. - . America: Individual freedom. -- ... ' , LETTERS PUBLIC LAND FOCUS Dy to Wto GSiiglM ATVs on the San Rafael Desert for many years and I feel like know it ns well ns anybody. The area Is very Important to me, I've read all of the articles, ads and letters to the editor in last Tuesday's Progress. I feel like I'm fairly well ' Informed on the monument Issue, but If 1 werent know that I would be confused by the claims being made by till sides Involved In tills issue. Let me express to you what I know for ' 1 1 sure. 1. The Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance is not a friend to the people of rural Utah, especially Kmery County. And if they want a national monument, as they stated In their ad, . than we don't want It. 2. SUWA Is not a friend to the rancher, they hate horses and cattle as much as they do ATVs. ' 3. A National Monument will not stop the Redrock Wilderness Act. As SUWA states In their ad, monument or not they will continue to press for passage of this act. 4. 1 took offense to SUWAs Insinuation that hiking and backpacking are the only proper family activities that should be allowed on the San Rafael. For one thing SUWA Is not a family oriented organization. lbr another, responsible motorized vehicle use is the primary outdoor activity for my , ' family. 5. Going by what 1 read In the ' letters to the editor, some of the . cattlemen In Kmery County don't . , realize thut they too are a special interest group. And that a National , .. Monument Is not In their best Interest either, ask the people of Ksealante. 6. The Utah Shared Access Alii- .. ance is not an outside group bringing In outside money. They represent mo " and many people In Kmery County, , and the money they use art1 the dues and donations we give them to represent us. it is no different than the NRA , 2 2 being involved if on attempt was j; being made to bun guns in Kmery County, which I'm sure SUWA would r supjwrt. in closing, 1 dont believe a national monument is an answer to the San Rafael question. I dont believe the people of Kmery County would have a say in the way it was managed. 1 think a future liberul president like i. Clinton could ultcr it in any way they f r saw' fit. I think there is a good chance that grazing, hunting, off highway vehicle f use and mining activities would be r severely restricted or eliminated as was done with the Grand Staircase. I ! ! say vote no on National Monument. -Kosa Tony Price. Utah 2 , , b r thirsty ?OOR |