Don't cry for the roadless rule
"We welcome our opportunity to provide input and we won't be shy about providing it.'' —Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer on the repeal of the roadless rule."This procedural rule change does not alter any of the existing Forest Service planning criteria, regulations or law. It is a cosmetic attempt to appear to act without any real change. This is really a costly exercise in futility for the states and a mechanism for the Forest Service to deflect political pressure. I frankly wish they would have spent their efforts on making the planning process more effective and efficient for the average citizen rather than adding another layer.'' —Wyoming Gov. Dave Freudenthal.
The roadless rule was a big win for national environmentalists during the Clinton Administration. And, good for them, it kept many of the West's national forests out of commercial production and safe for properly functioning eco-systems. But, now the Bush Administration has pulled away the table cloth and has left it up to Western governor's to decide what to do now.
Since most of the West's governors are Democrats (or have said like Arnold that they will respect the original roadless rule), this is a real opportunity to show that Western Dems can balance the needs of our communities with our natural resources. David at Voxdeserto has a good point:
Unlike other federal policies that are basically giveaways to industry, however, I think this one should be viewed as a test of the "tiering down" approach. It's an opportunity for states and communities to demonstrate that they are serious and capable stewards of the land around them, and that they can manage public interests beyond short-term economics. And frankly, at this point and as surreal as it seems, I'd rather see the governor of Utah deciding the fate of Utah's forests instead of the president and his appointees.
This new rule can be a victory for Western Dems, but we have to start working now in order to make it happen. In states where we have Democrat governors we have to be sure they craft good strong plans that work for everyone. In states with Red governors, we have to be involved, super duper involved, in crafting the plans to show that Westerners can be good stewards of their owns states.
We won't know the real outcome of this new rule for years, but hopefully, in the end, Westerners in general and Western Dems specifically, can be seen as both protecting our landscape and our communities.
Emmett O'Connell | May 6, 2005 | Comment on This Post (2 so far) |
Your Name: Your Personal Note: | Your Email: Friends' Emails*: |
Comments
Among the many problems with this analysis, the most glaring is that the new rule doesn't actually give states the authority the author suggests. It merely forces them to spend state tax money preparing a petition that the Forest Service might act upon but is under no obligation to accept.
Posted by: Jonathan Poisner | May 6, 2005 12:59:08 PM
(posted over at Frontier PAC as well - )
As I read the ruling, Jonathan Poisner is right in that the federal government retains a veto over individual National Forest management decisions. The ruling does, however, give states and communities a much bigger seat at the decisionmaking table, and there may be significant legal ramifications of this new role.
Posner's contention seems to be that this new process is another greenwashing by the administration, and that it's a big waste of state money. That will be true if the states roll over. If, however, locals decide to go beyond whining about Bush and Co.'s terrible policies and get serious about participating, then this is an unprecedented chance to show that local communities in the west are as interested in conservation as them east-coasters. Emmett's right on - people got to get involved, early and often, and start walking some of all that talking.
Nobody knows how this process will play out - it could be that despite state/community recommendations to the contrary, Bosworth et al. will give up forests to development and it was all another ruse. But I'd bet that legally there is a lot more to this new rule than what meets the eye. And frankly, the bottom line is that they were going to rescind the rule regardless.
Another potential "unintended consequence" of the ruling is this: say that a state goes through a legitimate process of coming up with a plan for a particular national forest. If that recommendation is ignored by the USFS, it will, a la Terri Schaivo, alienate many people who otherwise agree with the administration's tactics. Trust me on this as a P&Z commissioner in Grand County: there's no better way to piss of westerners of every political stripe than to ignore their input on local land use issues.
I'm the last person who thinks that Bush and Co. have any kind of preference for environmental stewardship over extractive commercial interests. Whether it was ignorance or arrogance or, strange as it may be, an actual interest in local and state participation in the process, there's an opportunity here that could very well come back to haunt the administration.
Posted by: David Everitt | May 8, 2005 12:59:29 PM
Ads by Google
(and yes, we know that sometimes they're very, very wrong. Other times, they're right on.)
