May 13, 2013
Americans Fighting Their Own Government For Economic Survival
By Marita Noon
5/12/2013
No wonder the national debt is at nearly $17 trillion—and ticking higher every day. Polls repeatedly show most Americans believe that reducing the budget deficit should be a top priority, yet policy gets in the way of democracy and prevents practical solutions.
I’ve
previously participated in, and reported on, various public meetings
and hearings where the local citizens rally to draw media attention to
their plight and plead with the government agencies that control their
economic future.
Some of these stories include the Otero County Tree Party
where hundreds of residents of a small mountain community, who live in
fear of fires fed by overgrown forests—due to management designed to
save the habitat of an endangered species—gathered to force the Forest
Service to stop fighting them and start cooperating. I was honored to play a part
in the Tree Party. They’ve had success! County Commissioner Ronny
Rardin told me it would have never happened without the public outcry.
Using a newly created County Compliance Program, non-violent people
charged with a misdemeanor avoid jail time and do community service by
cutting down selected trees and thinning the forest—saving money for
both the county and the Forest Service, while saving the community from a
wildfire’s devastation.
Hundreds
of people gathered in an airplane hangar to protest the
endangered-species listing of the sand dune lizard that could have
severely hampered oil and gas extraction and ranching in the region and
killed the economic base of local communities. I was one of the speakers
at the rally. At the post-rally hearing, people waited into the night
for the opportunity to express their opinion to the bureaucrats from the
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). After an 18-month battle, the answer
came back from Washington, DC. The sand dune lizard escaped listing, oil and gas development and ranching activities continue in the Permian Basin region of Texas and New Mexico.
Now, the people in the Permian Basin are joined by those in Colorado, Kansas, and Oklahoma to fight the proposed listing of the lesser prairie chicken—which
would wreak similar economic havoc as the sand dune lizard listing
(this time to a larger region). In February, I emceed the hangar-held
rally and attended the public comment session manned by FWS staff. The
comment period was cut off before everyone who wanted to could voice
their opinion—leaving angry, unheard, citizens. Pressure has been put on
Senators, as their constituents inundated their offices with calls
asking them to use their weight to stop the lesser prairie chicken
listing. As a result of the effort, on May 9, Senator Tom Udall’s (D-NM)
office released a statement supporting the plan to prevent the listing
of the lesser prairie chicken: Senator Udall “believes that the Five
State Plan, if done correctly, can be a win-win solution resulting in
habitat protection and regulatory certainty for the farmers, ranchers,
and the oil and gas industry. Senator Udall continues to be engaged with
the Administration to ensure the Five State Plan receives proper
consideration and has every opportunity to succeed in its goal.”
On May 8, I drove 2.5 hours to attend a public meeting
about a new management plan for federal lands in three New Mexico
counties—it was the last of three such public meetings. The plan was
outlined, but attendees were not allowed to ask questions or comment
during the presentation. Maps lined the room’s perimeter. In short,
myriad acts and laws have to be taken into account in the management of
public lands including the Endangered Species Act, the Federal Lands
Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air
Act, and the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA)—just to name a
few. By the time all of these layers of regulation are applied to
nominated portions of federal lands, virtually all economic activity is
prohibited or severely limited—including ranching/grazing, mining, and
oil and gas extraction. Even recreational uses, such as off-highway
vehicles (OHV), can be banned or severely restricted.
After
the 2-hour session, I felt agitated and frustrated. In the brief public
presentation, we were told that they were holding these meetings
because NEPA requires public participation. However, unlike the other
public meetings I’ve attended, no public comment was allowed at the
meeting. Additionally, when attendees were instructed on how provide
written comment, we were told that we were to offer only “substantive
comments” on the data and/or the science—not to vote in favor of, or
opposition to, the Resource Management Plan (RMP).
Following
the meeting, I spent time with Bill Childress, the District Manager for
the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the Las Cruces office and Dave
Wallace, the Assistant District Manager. I pointed out that their format
discourages public comment, as no average person is ever going to read
the 500+ page document—or be able to offer comment on the science or the data. “That’s the way it is,” was the response.
Regarding
the BLM’s comment process, Joanne Spivack, an activist fighting the
closure of roads and trails to motorized use, told me: “The only thing
that matters are comments that specifically challenge how the RMP
analysis is being done. That’s what ‘substantive’ means. 99.999% of the
public don’t understand what that means. It takes a firm understanding
of the NEPA process to write a comment that can challenge the agency and
lead to an appeal (and lawsuit). The only things we can submit that can
be used for our appeals, or in a lawsuit, are our formal comments
submitted by the deadline. Those comments must be based solely on what is in the written Draft RMP and its associated documents.”
With
Childress and Wallace, another meeting attendee and I discussed the
known oil and gas resources and the potential presence of rare-earth
elements. The TriCounty RMP designates several ACECs (Area of Critical
Environmental Concern)—which are essentially managed as “wilderness
areas,” though ACECs are not designated by Congress. Childress and
Wallace explained that the process of creating ACECs is at the
discretion of the Bureau; it is qualitative not quantitative, and
subjective. They told us that generally conservation groups nominate the
ACECs. Spivack noted: “There is no place or time in the process for the
public to oppose the ACECs.”
Surprise! The Wilderness Society’s website offers their “Wish List for the BLM in 2013”—which
includes: “Designate Otero Mesa as an ACEC in the TriCounty RMP and
initiate an administrative mineral withdrawal for the area to protect
its innumerable natural and cultural resources.”
The proposed 198,511-acre ACEC for Otero Mesa includes the following potential resource-use limitations:
-
Exclusion and limitations of new rights-of way,
-
Closure to mineral sales and geothermal leasing,
-
Closure to vegetation sales, and
-
Limitation of vehicle use to designated routes.
Spivack
explains it this way: “The RMP doesn’t have specifics about what will
be banned, why or where. There are no facts, no analysis and no proof
that an ACEC is needed. But the RMP lays the groundwork for future
lock-downs, by creating ‘conceptual’ frameworks such as ‘desired
conditions’ and by creating new designation areas like ACECs. The RMPs
have vague wording about future restrictions, which could be imposed in
order to ‘protect the values’ of the ACEC. The ACEC is a way of creating
management ‘goals’ which trump multiple use. The ACEC is a blank check
and can be used restrict any activity under any excuse they want to cook
up.”
The
Otero Mesa portion of the BLM managed lands has the potential for oil
and gas resources, and rare-earth elements. Due to existing land-use
restrictions—before the proposed RMP is even implemented—a company
interested in developing the rare earths was required to do its
minimal-impact exploration with 19th century technology: horses and hand
tools. When the exploration was complete, a hand rake was used to erase
the footprints and restore the land. A company executive reported: “The
RMP has the potential to adversely impact future mineral development.”
Commissioner
Rardin and all his fellow county commissioners in Otero County are
excited about the potential economic benefit the rare-earth mining
project could bring: $25 million in the first year alone. Rardin
believes one of the goals of the RMP is to stop the mining project. He
told me: “The BLM is taking away our ability to make a living. As long
as I am commissioner, I will challenge them and look to properly use our
lands.” In Otero Country—a county as big as the state of Connecticut
with 62,000 residents, only 12% of the land is taxable. The potential
for mineral extraction, including oil and gas, is important for the
community—and the people want it. Locking up the resources constitutes a
government taking.
Ranchers
in the region feel the same way. Steve Wilmeth, a rancher from southern
New Mexico whose family came to New Mexico beginning in 1880, wrote
about these attacks on the culture and customs of the West:
“Increasingly, Westerners are governed not by laws, but by policy and
regulations. Local governance isn’t planning or crafting solutions for
communities. Rather, local governance is defending itself against the
latest project being driven by conservation cooperation agreements.”
Regarding the policies to be instituted and policed by the agencies,
Wilmeth, in The Westerner,
writes: “There is no grassroots land planning in this debacle. This is
an end-run legislative proxy. It is being engineered by the
environmental brokers.”
Addressing
the proposed ACECs, Wilmeth’s comments echo Spivack’s. He told me: “The
BLM, by FLPMA authority, can designate ACECs. In the draft, you will
notice they are intending to manage the Nutt Grassland ACEC (newly
declared) as a Wilderness Study Area, as if it is being prepped for
“Wilderness” status. FLPMA does not make that a mandatory action. So, we
might not be immediately forced out of an ACEC, but the BLM, in their
conservation cooperative action with environmental groups, is shaping
and managing toward de facto wilderness without Congressional
authority.”
In
addition to his dawn-to-dusk ranching responsibilities, Wilmeth,
representing the Council of Border Conservation Districts, the New
Mexico Coalition of Conservation Districts, and the Doña Ana Soil and
Water Conservation District; County Commissioners such as Rardin; oil
and gas companies with a stake in the outcome; and OHV organizations are
each working through the Draft RMP to address their opposition to this
latest federal land grab and will have their comments in by the July 11
deadline. Will you join them?
This may seem like just a New Mexico issue, but the same thing is
happening in many locales throughout the West—where most states have a
high percentage of federally managed land. I am sure readers could tell
me similar stories from the surrounding states.
When
the ranchers hate it; the county commissioners oppose it; the OHV folks
are fighting it; and the miners and oil and gas companies can’t stand
it—but, the environmental organizations in cooperation with the
government agencies are for it—you know you’ve got a project that will
stop all potential economic input. Once again, policy trumps growth and
economic potential.
When Americans have to fight their own government for their economic survival, you know something has to change.
No comments:
Post a Comment