|
|
 |
 |
|
|
Posted June 11, 2001
Who Speaks for the West?By Tom Arrandale
In no other part of the country are politicians so mesmerized by myths from the past than in the Rocky Mountain West. That may be the most plausible explanation for why Idaho, Montana, Utah and Colorado officials rallied in court against a federal plan for protecting pristine forests that most of their constituents seem to favor.
In January, the U.S. Forest Service adopted a rule that bars building roads into 54 million acres of largely untouched forests that include large tracts in the Rockies. But before adopting the rule, the Forest Service conducted 400 public meetings and took comments from 1.2 million people around the country. By a 96 percent margin, including substantial majorities in most of the West, participants told the agency they supported even tougher measures to protect roadless lands against destruction.
But joined by two Idaho counties, the Kootenai tribe and Boise Cascade Corp., Idaho Governor Dirk Kempthorne and Attorney General Alan G. Lance convinced a federal judge in Boise that U.S. forest managers violated federal environmental laws by giving short shrift to state and local government objections. Kempthorne argues that the Forest Service “stiffed the states”by rushing to a predetermined conclusion to set the roadless lands aside before former President Clinton left office.
In a May 10 ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Edward Lodge agreed with Idaho officials that the process violated the federal National Environmental Policy Act’s requirements to invite public participation. A federal appeals court that has historically sided with environmental-group lawyers may well overrule Lodge. With the conspicuous exception of Montana Attorney General Mike McGrath, neighboring state governors and attorneys general are backing Idaho’s stand.
But the dispute raises a fundamental question: Who speaks for the West when the federal government makes management decisions on publicly owned lands that make up one-third of states in the region? Should it be governors and other public officials elected by popular vote, or the citizens from Idaho, Montana, Colorado and other states who took the time to attend meetings and, by and large, supported protecting roadless areas?
McGrath, along with conservation groups, say it’s the latter. Boise Cascade encouraged its Idaho employees to pack roadless review meetings, and opinions expressed in the state generally split down the middle. In neighboring Rocky Mountain states, however, the Forest Service found that supporters outnumbered opponents.
The agency conducted 34 meetings in Montana, for instance, and two-thirds of the 17,000 state residents who commented called for stronger protection that the Forest Service was proposing. Local governments in Montana cities and counties that depend on tourism also wrote letters expressing support for safeguarding pristine forests. Far from representing a flawed process designed to reach the conclusion that the Clinton administration wanted, “the roadless rule is rather the product of public rule-making at its most effective,” McGrath contended in filing an appeals court brief siding with environmental groups that are defending the Forest Service process.
Montana Governor Judy Martz and her Republican counterparts in Utah, Colorado, Wyoming and North Dakota disregarded the findings about opinion in their states to join Idaho’s legal challenge. As the Forest Service concedes, public comment doesn’t amount to a plebiscite on protecting wild landscapes.
Ordinarily, you’d prefer to trust governors and other officials who face the voters every four years to discern what the public wants and implement their will on crucial environmental policies. In the Rocky Mountain states, however, that democratic premise is getting harder to have faith in. Most political leaders can’t seem to shake the old frontier belief that wilderness should be tamed, not protected. They’ve never gotten past resenting that national parks, forests and rangelands owned by the federal government make up a third or more of their states. Small-town conservatives who dominate the legislatures and occupy executive positions don’t act as if they’re responsible to any constituents except ranchers, miners, loggers and snowmobile drivers. And, truth be told, Western Republicans learned to dislike Clinton so much that they’re suspicious of any policy left over from his administration.
But however imperfect the Forest Service proceedings may have been, they picked up changing attitudes about preserving forests and other public lands in Denver, Boise, Missoula, Bozeman and other fast-growing Rocky Mountain cities. Governors haven’t yet concluded that listening to newcomers’ views counts as much as defending the West’s customary rural, anti-government tradition. Election results so far have borne that out, but the forest debate suggests that the time is coming when state officials will have to pay attention.
Tom Arrandale is Governing’s environment columnist and a staff correspondent for the magazine.
Agree? Disagree? Want to expand on the discussion? E-mail us at mailbox@governing.com, and we'll post your comments here. Please include your name, location, government or business title or job description, and a daytime phone number (for verification purposes).
Readers’ Responses:
GETTING OUT THE ‘VOTE’
I appreciated Tom Arrandale's observations about the changing attitudes in the West. I believe he has touched on an important trend. I also agree that the Forest Service is doing an admirable job in changing management practices to reflect these changing attitudes (the recent Eagle Creek timber sale in Oregon is a great example). I urge caution, however, at placing too much emphasis on the result of "public" meetings. I've been in government service long enough to know how to pack a meeting with supporters. Grassroots groups which have motivated members--such as many environmental groups--are good at getting out the "vote."
In addition, though it seems that the West's governors (though I'd appreciate the notation of these as Rocky Mountain states) are "out of touch" with their constituents, Mr. Arrandale rightly noted that it is the changing attitudes in the big cities of these states. I believe that many of these governors speak for the "politically incorrect" farmers, ranchers, miners and loggers who live off the land. Their important voice is becoming difficult to hear. While technology gets so much attention these days, many of our economies out here still rely on these resources-based industries. Like it or not, we are still linked to the land.
As usual with many of these issues, balance is the key.
Tom Simpson
(I am a Forest Service employee but the comments below are my personal opinion and not agency policy, position or in any way endorsed by the agency.)
I respect Mr. Arrandale's view as described in his article. I would like to note that while the growing cities are becoming more politically diverse, much of the people native to the West find it disturbing to have their western lifestyle influenced so heavily by "politically correctness." Most of the people who move to the Rocky Mountain states do so for quality-of-life reasons. The influx of urbanites has displaced many native locals from their favorite camping/hunting/fishing/recreation sites, not to mention the people who are forced into unemployment. Who represents that displaced group? What were once secluded forests are now overrun with people loving the land to death.
As for the numbers of meetings and comments for the Roadless Areas Conservation Rule, the numbers are a touchy subject. First, all of those who participated are a self-selected group. The numbers merely suggest that there are 1.6 million people who care about the issue. Second, of the 1.6 million, many letters and postcards are duplicate mailings from a single individual, an attempt at padding a vote. And last, but surely not least, the National Environmental Policy Act is a procedural law. That is, the law requires agencies to consider the potential impacts and issues, disclose that information to the public, and allow for the public to comment. Comments that do not offer substantive or meaningful contribution are acknowledged but offer little or no help or insight on an issue or impact and, thus, do little to guide or influence a decision. It is not a vote!
I am a Forest Service employee, and I participated firsthand in many of the nearly 600 public meetings throughout the country. I also participated firsthand in the analyzing of all of the public comments. What I think of the courts'/judges' opinion is neither here nor there. However, as a public servant, I perform my responsibilities and duties according to the law. If Congress or the president or the court make a decision that changes what I do, I must conform despite my personal feelings. Most FS employees feel the same way. I find it very discouraging to have journalists second-guess and mix half-truths with conjecture, supported by biased sources, and tell people how bad it is out West because of Republicans (or loggers, cattle/sheep ranchers, miners, etc...).
It was once said, "You are either part of the problem or part of the solution." When the press or an interest group (on all sides of the issue) use propaganda and disinformation to influence a decision, they are part of the problem. Making a position statement offers little help. One of my duties is to help the Forest Service develop better ways to involve and include the many aspects of the communities of interest and the public in general. A good portion of my time is spent clarifying and correcting wrong information proliferated by some group or people so that the public can obtain a clear picture of the decision to be made.
I hope that all who participate in the NEPA process do so with purpose and thought. Remember, it is not a vote.
Christopher Wehrli
Recently in View:
Teacher Vsn. 2.0: can teaching be automated? (posted June 4, 2001)
Burning Issue: the one-size-fits all approach to fire fighting (posted May 23, 2001)
Civil Disservice: managing with bold bromides (posted May 17, 2001)
Logic v. the Law: sodomy, hate crimes and the search for consistency (posted May 12, 2001)
Achingly Alone: a mayor has to have a constituency (posted May 7, 2001)
Chipping Away at the GOP: riding the tide shift (posted May 1, 2001)
Complete index of previous columns
|
|
