|
By THE NEW MEXICAN
September 30, 2005
For Northern New Mexico's Tom Udall and a few other congressional
defenders of the environment, these days are -- to put it mildly --grim.
The party in power, perhaps sensing that its days in charge of Capitol
Hill are fast fading with every revelation of Republican corruption and
mismanagement, is in a rush to repeal longstanding protection of public
land -- and the plants and animals inhabiting it.
First target: the Endangered Species Act, signed into law by Republican
Richard Nixon in 1973.
The act is credited with saving not only our national symbol, the bald
eagle, but also such high-profile creatures as the grizzly bear and the
Florida panther. But the law also has saved many "lesser"
species important to ecological balance. Those minnows, bugs and plants
were part of the congressional intent to rein in certain destructive
practices -- but because of their relative insignificance, they were
held up to ridicule by the act's opponents. For the sake of a li'l fish,
we can't build a dam wherever we want?
But it wasn't just the fish; it was what the dam, and its consequences,
would do to a whole ecosystem that led environmentalists to invoke the
Endangered Species Act.
The federal bureaucracy being what it is, the act from time to time has
been unfair -- most frustratingly in the stringing out of the permit
process involved in construction or tree-thinning projects where an
endangered species might or might not be living.
So the tack being taken by California Rep. Richard Pombo and most other
Republicans on the House Resources Committee is to remind Americans of
the act's most egregious shortcomings -- while trying to repeal the
whole thing, and toss the baby out with the bathwater:
Among the Repubs' aims:
• Eliminating requirements to rebuild populations of endangered
species.
• Reducing protection for such species -- and their habitat.
• Using conservation funds to pay landowners and developers for the
inconvenience of obeying what's left of the law.
• Pushing environmental-protection groups out of the decision-making
process.
• Making it easier for habitat-threatening industries to sue whoever
stands in their way.
And if all this adds up to extinction of this species or that, well, too
bad.
Udall, fellow Democrats on the Resources Committee and the few
Republicans realizing the law's value are outnumbered -- but they have a
few weapons at hand:
• Letting their fellow Americans know what's going on: Pombo and Co.
have been trying to push their legislation through with a minimum of
publicity. As Udall notes, House Resolution 3824, overhauling the act,
wasn't released in its final form until just last week, while the
nation's attention has been on natural disasters. Udall notes that
there's a public-health issue -- the health of ecosystems -- here.
• Proposing a seperate bill: One measure being advanced by a
bipartisan minority would provide landowners with incentives for
protecting wildlife and habitat. That might appeal to Republicans, some
of them already wary of putting their names on a bill condemning certain
species to extinction.
With the resolution's passage in the Capital House, the scene shifts to
Congress' deliberative body -- the Senate, where Pete Dominici must make
a stand for animals who can't defend themselves.
Meanwhile, the act's defenders can hope that growing public awareness of
our nation's worsening condition will make GOP lawmakers nervous about
their assault on nature -- among whose fans are many Republican voters.
More about that in Sunday's editorial.
Northern New Mexicans should take comfort in knowing Tom Udall is
representing our conservationist concerns in Congress. Our fellow
citizens statewide should be sharing their concerns -- and Udall's --
with Republican Reps. Heather Wilson and Steve Pearce, as well as
Republican Sen. Domenici and Democratic Sen. Jeff Bingaman.
We find it hard to believe that any New Mexico lawmaker finds the
Endangered Species Act so awful that it demands major overhaul, let
alone repeal. Our state's entire delegation should resist the Pombo
proposal and propose sensible, limited, reforms.
|
