Salt Lake City, UT — Feb. 29, 2008 — The Utah Senate on Thursday added its voice to growing opposition in Utah to environmental group proposals to lock away more than 9 million acres of public lands in the state, and instead called for continued development of the state's abundant oil and gas, coal, oil shale and other natural resources.

In an overwhelming 22-3 vote, the Senate approved legislation - House Joint Resolution 10 - passed by the Utah House earlier this month. The resolution "urges Congress not to enact federal legislation designating additional 'wilderness' on public lands within Utah without the unanimous support of Utah's congressional delegation."

The resolution also “urges the United States Bureau of Land Management not to restrict access to existing public lands in Utah under its jurisdiction through so-called ‘wilderness characteristics’ options in resource management plans."

"Easterners think these lands are their playground, but we are the ones who take care of these lands," said State Senator Mike Dmitrich, the Senate's leading Democrat and prime sponsor of the bill in the Senate. "Oil and gas and mining resources are the roots of our economy in Utah. We cannot afford to let environmental elitists and New York politicians lock away these lands from the Utah public."

"What we're seeing is a rapidly growing prairie fire of opposition to the anti-energy agenda of the environmental elites," said Greg Schnacke, President and CEO of Americans for American Energy. "Democrats and Republicans are linking arms to push back against those extremists who want to shut down American energy production and force us into an even greater addiction to foreign energy."

The resolution also states that "locking away much of Utah's valuable mineral resources from environmentally sound development not only hurts Utah economically, but also weakens America by hamstringing the production of more energy in Utah," noting that "less American energy means more imported energy from hostile nations, some with ties to terrorist organizations that despise the United States."

At a joint press conference Feb. 14 with 32 Utah legislators from both parties, lawmakers spoke out strongly against the Congressional legislation (H.R. 1919) and efforts by the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA) to stop American energy development.

“Liberal New York Congressman Maurice Hinchey (sponsor of H.R. 1919) and political activist groups like the Sierra Club, National Resources Defense Council and Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance think they know better than Utahns how best to use Utah’s public lands,” said state Rep. Aaron Tilton (R), chief sponsor of H.J.R. 10. “This resolution sends a clear signal to Washington that public lands in Utah should remain open to agriculture, outdoor recreation and environmentally sound energy development.”

"BLM needs to act, and act now,” added Tilton. “They need to complete their work on these RMPs (resource management plans) as soon as possible, and not use those RMPs to approve de facto wilderness.”

Said state Rep. Mike Noel (R-District 73): “Utah already is burdened with seemingly endless federal restrictions and federal ownership over millions of acres of land within our borders. One thing we don’t need is the federal government – or East Coast-funded extremist groups operating in our state – further restricting the public’s access to public lands.”

Rep. Roger Barrus (R-District 18), chairman of the Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Environment Committee, said: "At a time when it is obvious that global energy demand will soon outpace that which we use in the United States, it is only prudent that we not shackle our ability to produce energy from the natural resources on public lands located in our state by creating more wilderness.”

"Right now energy production from the Rocky Mountain West is what is making up for diminishing supplies in the other parts of the country," Barrus said.

Noel said that the Hinchey bill would “result in lost jobs in several industries, including tourism and recreation, and would prevent the state from utilizing rights-of-way for pipelines and other pathways critical not only economically, but also for state and national security.”