Huge wilderness bill is scary mess

The sheer size and scope of the Northern Rockies Ecosystem Protection Act is enough to send shivers down the spine.

It is a spooky bill, indeed, that has been resurrected for the umpteenth time. But this time, it is getting more favorable treatment in the Democrat-controlled Congress, earning a hearing in the House Natural Resources Committee this week.

So what is so scary about it? NREPA, as it is known, would designate 24.3 million acres of wilderness out of federal lands in several Western states, a landscape so vast that it amounts to the largest wilderness proposal ever in the lower 48 states.

The designation would include 9.5 million acres in Idaho; 5 million acres in Wyoming; 750,000 acres in eastern Oregon; 500,000 in eastern Washington; and most importantly, 7 million acres in Montana, including big swaths of national forest adjacent to Glacier National Park.

It would also add 106 river segments totaling 1,886 miles to the national inventory of wild and scenic rivers.

There can be no doubt that the bill, if enacted, would remove seas of forest from timber production potential, along with eliminating roaded access to vast areas that are currently accessible. Regardless of NREPA advocates' arguments that the designated areas would remain accessible (on foot or horseback), it quite plainly would vastly decrease public use and public benefits on public lands.

While NREPA advocates claim the bill presents utopian economic value in the sense that it protects natural assets that fuel local economies, the nuts-and-bolts economic damage caused by such a vast designation would be overwhelming.

The worst part of it is the sweeping, blanket approach of designations declared from Washington, D.C. There is nothing grassroots about it, in the sense of Montanans having the most to say about designations in their own state. Worthy wilderness designation can and should be proposed one area at a time, with justifications to win public support.

NREPA is a plan that was originally hatched by a band of Western environmental groups, with the Missoula-based Alliance for the Wild Rockies in the lead. It is telling that these "Western" groups resorted to two East Coast lawmakers - Rep. Christopher Shays, R-Conn., and Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y. - to serve as legislative sponsors.

It was first introduced in 1992 and suffered the fate of a snowball in hell in a series of subsequent appearances in Congress. The main problem is that it had little or no buy-in from Western lawmakers.

Back in 1999, Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., told the Inter Lake: "It's too much. I just don't think this will get any traction whatsoever."

We hope Max still feels that way. And if he does, he should say so again, and put an end to an idea that is just as bad now as it was then.