OCR Text |
Show Which Is Ri&ht? USU Escalante Study Shows 73.15 Growth Rate But US Census Shows 2.39 Loss By Toni Thayer ESCALANTE - Maybe you didn't know it, but Escalante is one of the fastest growing cities in the United States according to a new study released in May by the Institute for Social Science Research on Natural Resources at Utah State University (USU). The study, Rural Community Change in the Intermountain West, found that the city's growth rate for the decade ending end-ing in 2000 was 73.15 percent and that "the community clearly experienced substantial population popula-tion growth during the 1990s." What? You say that can't be true? You're absolutely right! The U.S. Census Bureau lists the population change for Escalante as a loss of 20 people, down from 838 in 1990 to 818 in 2000, a significant difference from the study's ending tally of 1,451. The error appears to stem from duplicating Milford, Utah's 2000 population, another area surveyed by the researchers. Rick Krannich, Professor of Sociology at USU, said in a telephone interview on May 27 that he personally oversaw over-saw the research as the Project Director and was totally unaware of the mistake. With a "goal of understanding understand-ing how local residents viewed their communities and the changes affecting them", Krannich agreed that the skewed population figures showing astronomical growth could lead to radically different conclusions conclu-sions about Escalante and its residents. In a follow-up interview on June 2, Krannich said he didn't know how those receiving the study might use the data or how he could issue correction notices to them. "A number of people requested the study, and we mailed it. We can't mail corrected cor-rected sheets out, because we don't know where the original mailing list is, but we have added an errata sheet for the copies already bound and undistributed." undis-tributed." The study also contained numerous other typographical and calculation errors, but Krannich did not indicate whether those corrections would also be identified on the errata sheet. When asked why Escalante was selected over other towns in the region, Krannich replied, "Due to its location and reduction reduc-tion of resources since the designation desig-nation of the Grand Staircase-Escalante Staircase-Escalante National Monument GSENM." - Some of the questions asked of residents could aid developers develop-ers in deciding what might be needed in the supposedly fast growing towns, such as what goods and services are available within a 30-minute drive from home and what's the most effective effec-tive avenue of getting news and information, whether that's through newspaper, radio, bulletin bul-letin boards, church announcements, announce-ments, newsletters or word of mouth. Some questions gauged the residents' attachments to their communities and whether they would support or oppose losing 50 percent of agricultural lands to development, a 100-home subdivision within one mile of their property, or a 50 percent increase in seasonal residents or tourists. Given the errors contained throughout the report, it's unclear whether the residents' responses are Valid; however, as listed, some Escalante views are quite different from the other studied regions and pretty interesting. inter-esting. The following results from the USU study indicate Escalante responses vs. the fastest growing study region (in parentheses, Star Valley, Wyo.) regarding the importance of: Ability to earn a living off i the land -77.1 (60.3) Limiting the rate of population popula-tion increase 42.2 (67.9) New policies to better protect pro-tect local environmental quality - 24.9 (60.5) Being involved in decisions that affect the community 66.2 (54.8) Knowing what goes on in the community 70.5 (61.6) Area not being heavily developed - 66.6 (79.5) Opposing more restrictive land usezoning rules that would stop private land sales for subdivision subdi-vision developments 75.9 (52.7) Opposing access for motorized motor-ized travel on adjacent public lands - 78.8 (58.8) Another U.S. Census Bureau report, the Consolidated Federal Funds Report, indicates Federal spending has increased dramatically dramati-cally in the region since the designation des-ignation of the GSENM in 1996. Data from this report shows the influx of Federal funds in Garfield County from 1996 to 2001 as follows: Grant Awards 225.1 Procurement Contracts (subcontractors) - 216.9 Salaries & Wages -31.1 Total Direct Expenditures -79.5 Perhaps the USU study will serve as the benchmark for future community indicators after the full effects of these Federal investments have taken hold or in conjunction with Garfield County's dwindling 2001 population by 100 residents resi-dents as also projected by the U.S. Census. |