| OCR Text |
Show 167 campaigning against each 01hcr for Moss' Senate scat. However, the political turmoil that congressional campaigns had brought during the Canyonlands debate was absent. In May 1970, when Senate bearings on the national parks continued, Moss characterized Burton's legislation as "not too different from minc." 514 The one-hour hearings on Moss' national parks proposals came off as more a formality than a venue to hear opposing views. The Deseret News reported that "There was no opposition, and only one witness, Park Service Director George Hartzog."515 On July 2, 1970, the Senate passed Moss' bill without debate. Burton's bill also faced little opposition in the House Subcommittee on National Parks and Recreation. Moss testified in favor of Burton's bill and gave assurances that any differences between their bills could be worked out. The subcommittee reported favorably on the bill. However, it never came out of the full House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. Before the session ended, Chainnan Aspinall left for an around-theworld honeymoon with instructions that no legislative action be considered in his absence. Meanwhile, Burton lost his campaign for Moss' Senate scat, and both their national park bills died with the end of the congressional session. 'Locking Up' Land in Theory and Practice The primary argument advanced by national park opponents was that the designation would "lock up" the land and stifle economic development. But in late 1969, when a Utah mining corporation announced plans to remove nearly four million cubic ' 1• Frank Hewlett, ''Bill Favors Two More Utah Parks," Salt lake Tribune, May 29, 1970, 30. sis Gordon Eliot White, '·Hearing Without Hitch on Arches, Reef Bills," Desere1 News , May 28, 1970, Bl. |
