A History of Washington County

Epilogue - The debate over the future of Washington County

12 Epilogue THE DEBATE OVER THE FUTURE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY The Growth Issue For the first half of the twentieth century Washington County could be said to need population growth. However, by 1970 the flow of newcomers was substantial, and by 1990 the growth rate became a concern. The question of how many people the area can sustain has stimulated intense political debate. The ecological, economic, and aesthetic dimensions of the question were sufficient to entice many into the discussion. The subject is one of pressing political interest. The economic vitality of the region has become dependent on the growth that draws business, particularly construction, to the area. Many enterprises have come to depend on a steady influx of people and resources. In 1994 an advocacy group-Citizens for Moderate Growth (CMG)-was organized by Alison Bowcutt, Robert Owens, Frank Fair, and Nephi Evenson. It petitioned the St. George City Councd to set a three-percent growth limit and gradually reduce building per­mits from 1,100 that year to approximately 300 annuady. The lifestyle 372 THE DEBATE OVER THE FUTURE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY 373_ they so highly prize wid be destroyed, the group reasons, if commu­nities are allowed to continue growing so rapidly. Failing to get sat­isfaction from the city council, the CMG circulated initiative petitions and succeeded in getting the issue placed on the ballot for the 1995 general election. The election engendered wide debate including a series of position papers from both sides running nightly in the Spectrum for a week, extensive door-to-door campaigning, voter surveys, advertisements and candidate meetings. The growth-limitation proposition was rejected by 63 percent of the voters.1 The heated controversy leading up to the election dlustrated that controlling future growth will undoubtedly be a lively issue for the next decade. An overview of this matter, published in the St. George Magazine explored some of the issues. It began by providing basic data: As late as 1970, Washington County had just under 14,000 people. St. George accounted for half of that. Washington City had 750 and Santa Clara had 271. Hurricane had a substantial 1,408....By 1980 the county population was 26,065 which then rose to 48,560 in 1990. It is estimated that in 1994, St. George had a population of about 33,000 with the county reaching 61,657. Official state forecasts project 46,444 people in St. George by the year 2000, 68,176 in 2010 and 84,986 in 2020. The Utah Office of Planning and Budget forecasts that Washington County will have 81,845 people in the year 2000,118,934 in 2010 and 150,034 in 2020.2 The increase in tourism also reveals a concern about growth putting additional pressure on the resources of the county. In 1970, 903,340 visitors entered Zion National Park. In 1980,1,233,686 came. In 1990 there were 2,342,614; by 1993 the figure reached 2,873,300, a 250-percent increase in two decades. The increase of visitors has park managers considering a limitation on the number of tourists or the number of automobiles admitted, or both. The Washington County Travel and Convention Bureau reported that in 1983 the county had 1,382 motel rooms; by 1993 the number had risen to 2,758, again more than double. In 1996 the number exceeded 3,000. The bureau also reported that transient room taxes 374 HISTORY OF WASHINGTON COUNTY collected in 1972 amounted to $23,737; in 1994 the total was $818,664. The St. George Magazine article listed nine arguments for and against continued growth. The first argument suggests that growth provides advantageous "economies of scale" that bring opportunities for the community. Better libraries, new commercial centers, expanded housing developments, an enlarged college, improved entertainment, new ballparks and golf courses, a fine civic center and convention facilities, improved roads and inter-city highways, an updated sewer system, many new schools, an expanded airport and an airline, a symphony orchestra, classical and popular concerts by nationady known performers, and many other projects have resulted at lower costs per person because of growth. A second pro-growth argument is that people who are finding new homes in Dixie bring benefits. Many come with years of profes­sional experience which they offer, often on a volunteer basis. They are not a burden to schools or police. They bring their income with them and either buy a home or budd one. Young married newcomers often work in the service sector and provide a strong work force as well as a vital group of children. Third, young people come to Dixie to work in the construction, tourist, or service industries. This is a reversal of the lack of employ­ment opportunity that dominated the past. A fourth benefit of growth occurs in the improved health care sector. In the last three decades Dixie's growth has justified budding a regional medical center and several adied health facilities. Business expansion is a fifth result of growth. The creation of three malls and several neighborhood shopping centers, two indus­trial parks, and the Wal-Mart Distribution Center in Hurricane are examples of the favorable business climate in the county. Sixth is the diversity of people who come to Dixie. People of var­ied religions, professions, and age groups can find a welcome atmos­phere. A Spanish-speaking minority is growing, attracted by construction and service jobs. Public schools are having to meet the needs of Latinos and Native Americans, mostly Navajos, who do not speak English. A seventh reason to allow continued growth is that people want THE DEBATE OVER THE FUTURE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY 375 to come to Dixie. It is an enjoyable place to live. Some growth comes from offspring of current residents who choose to stay. Market demands are an eighth reason. Many believe that the market is the best regulator, and it has brought growth to Washington County since Dixie became a destination. If we meddle with the mar­ket, growth proponents argue, we will likely cause unanticipated chain reactions that are undesirable. The market also says growth comes in cycles. Such cycles wdl occur without artificial regulation. Finally, the ninth point is that consideration should be given to "momentum." Dixie definitely has momentum, but if the people of Washington County send a message that is unwelcoming to new­comers, or opposed to new business, then people will look else­where- perhaps Kanab, Mesquite, or Las Vegas-for a future home. Momentum is fragile; once gone it is difficult to regain. Casting it aside could have unexpected or unwanted consequences. Nine arguments were offered in opposition to unbridled growth. The first is that growth is consuming resources at an alarming rate. Dixie is fast becoming a luxury community where consumption of resources is high. Life in Dixie should be developed in the context of a desert, where such consumption is resisted. The impact of high-consumption living on the fragile desert landscape is a second concern of those who would limit growth. Automobde exhaust pollutes clear desert air and mars scenic beauty. Housing developments scar the landscape. Unsightly excavation on the black hdl west of St. George's business district is an example. New housing units can also damage plant and animal life. Seven species of animal life in the county are officially listed as endangered and more are being considered. One result of this is that some 60,000 acres above St. George and extending into Washington and Hurricane have been designated as a tortoise habitat preserve. A third argument: bigness is a problem in itself. Growth creates situations that police, social workers, courts, and political leaders can't keep up with. Greater dependence on welfare, increasing fam­ily disintegration, higher rates of child abuse, homelessness, and crime can overwhelm officials and upset community balance. Access to water is another element central to the growth-limita­tion arguments. Water is a limited resource, particularly in 376 HISTORY OF WASHINGTON COUNTY Washington County. People in the county use 374 gallons of water per day in contrast to a state average of 284. Water diverted to an urban center must be taken from somewhere else; it can't be manu­factured. A fifth argument maintains that future generations deserve a vote in this debate. Will scenery stdl be pristine for them? Wdl air stdl be as clean as it is today or will resources have been used up and replaced with sprawling waste, polluted water, and urban blight? Should the present generation not be stewards of the land as Brigham Young taught? Should this generation preserve it for the unborn? A sixth consideration involves transportation and traffic. All areas are of concern, but downtown St. George is especially worri­some. How wdl these already congested streets handle even more cars as growth continues? A seventh issue is that conservation is an ethic which requires an extraordinary amount of community wide agreement and invest­ment. Few seem to be addressing conservation. Why not look to water-conservation techniques? Couldn't we reduce the number of cars per person? How about using desert landscaping instead of lawns? Could we limit the use of wood-burning stoves? Shouldn't we establish pricing incentives for people to conserve water and electric­ity and recycle their waste? Are these not the rational things to do in a desert? The eighth issue is the disappearance of farming land and open space as many farms are turned into subdivisions. Should the Washington Fields, for example, really become residential housing? Finally, some ask this question: will we lose our sense of com­munity and neighborly relationships as urbanism arrives? Wdl we be forced always to lock our doors? Wdl we no longer know people who live nearby? These nine points on each side of the growth question dlustrate how complex the problems are that growth already has brought to Dixie. Three recent studies provide examples of planning efforts to address the growth. The first considered the physical limitations of expansion (e.g., hillsides, floodplains, differing altitudes, and unde­veloped acreage). One focused on available land. It presented three THE DEBATE OVER THE FUTURE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY 377 scenarios-low growth, moderate growth, and high growth. Scenario one forecasted a population of 140,435; scenario two estimated 323,078, and scenario three predicted that 690,665 people could fill the county if the land were utilized as that scenario suggested. The report neither predicted nor advocated any of these options. Rather, the study examined land availability and population distribution under differing land utilization and development proposals. The report generalized, "the availability of unconstrained land resources should not be a limiting factor to human population growth in Washington County untd well into the next century if ever."3 A second study focused on the availability of water instead of land. It saw much more constraint on growth, saying: "This means by the year 2040 the population of Washington County would increase to about 261,000 and the basin population would increase to about 275,000."4 A third recent study led to the adoption of St. George's long-range plan prepared in 1994 with the assistance of Winston Associates of Boulder, Colorado, and input from several community hearings. The St. George general plan provides a vision for the city's future. It foresees a community with an uncrowded feeling, plenty of shade trees, protected hillsides, neighborhood parks, and an efficient transportation system. The plan cads for ties to pioneer heritage, low crime rates, a diverse tax base, and well-managed growth. Good shopping, recreation opportunities, health care, entertainment resources, and stable government are valued in this plan. The plan's vision seems ambitious, but the existing community has already made some positive beginnings in each of the categories.5 What Will the Future Bring? Though some people may be nostalgic about small village life without traffic congestion, that life has long disappeared in most of Washington County. Not all people are thriving, but many, if not most, benefit from the high employment rate in the county. Job cre­ation is notably high. County retail sales increased from $132.5 md­lion in 1980 to $528.8 million in 1992. In 1992 tourists spent $22 million for lodging, from which $650,000 was codected in transient room taxes. The airport has expanded and increased enplanements 378 HISTORY OF WASHINGTON COUNTY from 11,115 in 1987 to 18,750 in 1993, with another 18,000 passen­gers passing through. The Utah Department of Transportation spent $50 million on highways in the county during the last seven years. Personal income has risen steaddy as have population, construction, tourist visitation, and almost any indicator used to measure the econ­omy of the county.6 To anticipate the future of Washington County, one can reason­ably surmise that the "graying of America" wdl continue, even accel­erate. Retirement-related business must be closely examined since it likely wdl become Washington County's most important economic factor. Washington County's desirable weather most likely wdl continue to draw retirees, tourists, families, and codege students. Dixie's sun­shine is an unlimited resource. Though it burdened pioneers, it is a boon today. Also, the desert scenery of Washington County wdl con­tinue to be a major magnet. Many people of all ages, tourists and local residents alike, are attracted to the red sand and the sandstone mesas. Though retirement is increasingly an economic and cultural influence, tourism is the industry which ended Dixie's isolation and transformed its economy. Tourism still receives much of the com­munity's promotional and economic efforts. A central issue in the county's future is protection of its world-class landscape. This wdl be the most serious concern of the next fifty years. It wdl be central to most political conflicts and decisions. The "Mormon factor" has been and wdl continue to be a signifi­cant influence. Dixie is often the retirement choice for many Mormons living in Utah, Idaho, and Wyoming. This group chooses Dixie because it is more culturally compatible to them. Some younger people are attracted to Dixie for the same reasons. Interestingly, people of other convictions find life in Dixie desirable despite (or maybe because of) the Mormon majority. Clearly the number of non-Mormons will increase as in Utah's other urban areas. Nonetheless, numbers of LDS people will also increase in the county as Mormons move to Dixie. The percentage of LDS people in the county remains high, 79.5 percent in 1992.7 Dixie has an appealing formula-sunshine, scenery, golf and THE DEBATE OVER THE FUTURE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY 379 other recreation, cultural amenities, moderate size, relatively clean air, and a peaceful, stable atmosphere that appeals to large numbers of tourists, retirees, and famdies. The big question facing Washington County is whether the appealing formula can be sustained as growth continues. How it is to be answered will certainly be the subject of heated debate in the near future as Washington County prepares to enter the twenty-first century. Because the federal government owns the largest portion of the county's 1.5 mdlion acres, federal regulations could modify growth expectations. About 40 percent of the land is under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management. Some is controlled by the U. S. Forest Service, some by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and some by the National Park Service. In addition, the State of Utah owns major sec­tions of school-trust lands. Only 18 percent of county land is owned privately. Federal legislation and agency regulations directly impact Washington County resources. The Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 cut grazing permits for sheep and cattle herds in the county as much as two-thirds. The Endangered Species Act (ESA) provides a more recent example of federal regulatory impact. St. George City aban­doned plans to develop on the red hdl, north of the Sugar Loaf, as a result of ESA regulations. A golf course planned for the area was not developed. One motive of the city and county was to reach a settle­ment so other areas could be developed. Such negotiations appear to be a significant part of the political reality for the future. Environmental advocacy groups such as the Southern Utah Wdderness Alliance have impacted policies of government agencies and have also become increasingly vocal among citizens in the county who are sympathetic to the environmental movement. Two groups of other local people have become active in the county-the Grand Canyon Trust and the Virgin River Land Preservation Association. These two are less confrontational, more into promoting dialogue and purchasing scenic lands and wetlands for preservation. Linkages are developing between these liberal advocates of environmental pro­tection and conservative anti-growth advocates who worry about crime and growth and traffic. An adiance of these groups could influ­ence policies that would limit growth. 380 HISTORY OF WASHINGTON COUNTY Another critical future issue wdl be Virgin River water distribu­tion. Since this tributary of the Colorado River was not included in the Colorado River Compact, its flow is stdl mostly negotiable. Utah's Virgin River communities currently are not ftdly utdizing the river's winter flow. The towns hope to meet expected water demands by diverting future winter flows by means of additional reclamation projects. Las Vegas, on the other hand, has immediate need for more water. Were Nevada able to arrange the redistribution of the Virgin River water because of its political clout, Washington County could be in serious difficulty. The Dixie communities have historical claim to the river's water and they have clear expectations of growth. Nonetheless, the river's distribution is a problem. So what can one conclude about Washington County, its past, present, and future? Certainly standing at this state centennial point allows many people more confidence than looking at the area through Paiute eyes between 1800 and 1850 or through European immigrant eyes between 1850 and 1900. Even as late as 1950, life for most county residents was marginal. The advent of air conditioning, tourism, retirement, freeways, airlines, and consumerism have wrought dramatic changes in the county. The graves of those earlier people, both Native Americans and European immigrants, were dug in parched sod fodowing lives that knew no luxury. The awesome beauty of the landscape was the same then as now; the views of Zion Canyon from atop Kolob have not changed. However, the meaning of human lives before 1950 was attached more to people's values than to their possessions. Since then human life in Dixie has been somewhat recast. It is ironic that, in contrast to the past austerity, living in Washington County for many people has become so desirable that the most urgent current issue is limiting the influx of people who are drawn to that lifestyle. If the graves of the pioneers could speak, they would likely warn about lux­ury, about overburdening the land, about being diverted from values. It is to be hoped that Washington County is one of those places where history and landscape and values wdl provide the best guide for the future. THE DEBATE OVER THE FUTURE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY 381 ENDNOTES 1. Spectrum, 8 November 1995,1. 2. Douglas D. Alder, "The Growth/Limited Growth Debate," St. George Magazine (July-August 1994): 14-23. 3. Keith J. Maas and Ken D. Teis, "Population Buildout Study, Washington County Utah," (Logan, Utah: GEO/Graphics, 1994). This study was commissioned by the Washington County Conservancy District. 4. Utah State Water Plan, Kanab Creek/Virgin River Basin, (Salt Lake City: Utah Board of Water Resources, August 1993). 5. "City of St. George General Plan," draft, Department of Community Development, 27 September 1994,6. 6. James A. Wood, "The Changing Demographic and Economic Structure of Washington County, Utah 1970-1993," Utah Economic and Business Review 54 (January-February 1994). 7. Historical Atlas ofMormonism, ed. S. Kent Brown et al. (New York: Simon 8c Schuster, 1994), 149.