A look at 'remote Utah': Moab area rife with problems and promise.

• Author: Stanton, Bette L.

A Look at |Remote Utah'

For as long as I can remember, the folks in northern Utah figured the Arizona border was located just south of Provo," says Lewis H. "Dude" Larsen. Larsen moved to Kanab, Utah, in 1939 and became involved in Kane County politics, as well as tourist-related businesses. Frustrated over the state's inability to recognize southern Utah, he ran for the Utah State Senate, representing a five-county district. One elected, Larsen was able to make some progress, but looking back he claims, "Little has changed over the last half century." Today Larsen owns property in Moab and Salt Lake City.

During the recent state legislative Utah Tomorrow planning sessions, rural Utahns testified about the problems and needs in rural and remote Utah. It was clearly brought to light that inequities do exist between rural Utah and the Wasatch Front, which represents only 4.4 percent of the total land in Utah. The reason is obvious. Seventy-seven percent of Utah's population is centered on the Wasatch Front, creating pressure for funds to be allocated proportionately. That leaves a quarter of Utah's population underfunded. Ironically, these people live on 95.6 percent of Utah's land - an area which accounts for a good portion of the state's revenue.

Most state and federal appropriations to local governments are alloted by population. Ironically, when rural counties hit hard times, they experience a population exodus, resulting in a reduction of funds from both state and federal sources. When assistance is most needed, communities are actually penalized by inadequate funding systems that do not consider the total scope and changing times. State and federal legislators need to re-examine the formulas by which funds are allocated to local and regional government entities.

State's Rural Utah Initiative

The state is presently doing a study on infrastructure needs in rural Utah, with a focus on the tourist-industry impact. If the results of the study are complete and reflect true conditions, the information could be used to evaluate and revise state appropriation formulas.

Several years ago, the Utah Department of Community and Economic Development took a giant stride forward to help rural Utah. A major marketing program was launched. The emphasis: "Rural Utah is ripe and ready for business!" Hundreds of inquiries poured in, and the cities such as St. George, Cedar City, Kanab, Richfield, Price, and Moab geared to take advantage of new opportunities.

While Cedar City and St. George landed a few companies, other cities and counties became painfully aware that they did not fit the "rural" mold. According to the 1990 U.S. Census, four of Utah's 29 counties are listed as metropolitan and, by industrial recruitment standards, eight might be considered rural. But what of the other 17 counties? Unfortunately, nearly two-thirds of the state did not adequately meet "rural" standards and were labeled "too remote."

Remote Status - Deadly or Profitable?

Moab and Grand County officials were among the first to recognize their...