Opposite this column today you will find one written by Sen. Larry Craig explaining his position on two Idaho-based wilderness and economic development bills, including my Central Idaho Economic Development and Recreation Act (CIEDRA). I would like to take this opportunity to explain the process used to develop CIEDRA and why I believe it deserves Sen. Craig's support. Over my eight years in Congress, I have turned to Sen. Craig for advice and guidance on many occasions and have greatly appreciated his counsel. For that reason, I turned to Sen. Craig a few years ago to seek his input on my efforts to draft CIEDRA. I wanted his input and I wanted him to know that he was free to offer up any advice he might have.Sen. Craig took me up on my offer. He told me he had tried to draft a wilderness bill early in his career and that it seemed to him an impossible task. He wished me good luck, said he was willing to help, and pledged to stay out of the way while I worked to secure a reasonable bill. Over the years, I have met with Sen. Craig numerous times and spoken with him and countless others about my efforts.Only recently did Sen. Craig become interested in "trigger language," which would mandate that all payments authorized under my legislation be paid prior to the designation of any wilderness. Regrettably, this requirement was presented to me long after negotiations with dozens of interested parties had been finalized and the bill had passed the House of Representatives with strong bipartisan support. Anyone who has followed the six-year process involved to create CIEDRA knows that it has been an arduous negotiation. I deeply appreciate the efforts of all involved in the process because each had to give up something dear to them to reach a consensus that resolves 30 years of bitter feelings over protections in the Boulder White-Clouds.Anyone who has followed this process knows that I have gone to great lengths to seek the input of Idahoans. I held open public meetings in Challis, Stanley and Ketchum. I have met with any interested party to seek their input and guidance. I have received thousands upon thousands of letters, e-mails and faxes from people across Idaho and have tried to incorporate their suggestions into the legislation.So anyone who has followed this process knows that Sen. Craig's late-inning condition of trigger language offsets the delicate balance of CIEDRA and serves not to strengthen my bill, but kill it altogether. I can't accept this condition and I believe Sen. Craig knows it.What I am trying to do in drafting CIEDRA is find an Idaho-based resolution to decades of wilderness conflict in Idaho before a future president, or an activist court, finds a solution for us. What I am doing is certainly unique, but it isn't the first attempt to do so in the West.In the late 1990s, a group of ranchers, environmentalists and interested parties got together to solve a complex set of land-use issues in the Steens Mountain area of Oregon. That landmark bill created new wilderness, but it also compensated ranchers in the area for sacrifices they made to create the bill. In time, it won easy passage in Congress.Today, Sen. Craig and others are claiming the Steens process is an example of why trigger language is needed. They say promises made to ranchers were not met because money authorized in the bill has yet been allocated.The truth is that every rancher who was promised something in the Steens process, and gave something up in return, was paid immediately after the bill became law. It is true that an additional $25 million in funds were authorized to be spent in the bill — but only for future land acquisition, conservation easements and non-development easements. In short, the promises made in the Steens legislation were promises kept, and the promises I have made in CIEDRA are promises I will keep as a member of the House Appropriations Committee.We have a unique opportunity in Idaho to set the course for our own destiny in the Boulder-White Clouds and in the Owyhee Canyonlands. We have a chance to make sure that Idahoans decide the future of these precious areas as opposed to a court-imposed or Washington, D.C.-based dictate on Idaho.If we don't act now, and if Sen. Craig doesn't remove his objections, the future of these areas will ultimately be decided by someone else and I am certain we will forever regret not having taken full advantage of the opportunity before us.Rep. Mike Simpson represents Idaho's2nd Congressional District.
