You are here

U.S. House Approves Legislation That Would Toss Aside Environmental Laws Protecting National Parks

Share

A package of bills that would toss aside environmental laws and regulations protecting a number of national parks passed out of the U.S. House of Representatives on Tuesday, though its prospects in the Senate were unclear.

The package, if it managed to become law, would give the U.S. Border Patrol wide-ranging access to lands managed by the National Park Service, the U.S. Forest Service, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, and other federal lands that lie within 100 miles of an international border.

Parks that fall within that 100-mile swath include Big Bend, Isle Royale, Everglades, Biscayne, Dry Tortugas, Glacier, North Cascades, Voyageurs, Virgin Islands, Olympic, Redwoods, Channel Islands, and all the national seashores.

Environmental laws and regulations set aside by one piece of the package, H.R. 1505, include The Wilderness Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, the Antiquities Act, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, the Fish and Wildlife Act, the National Park Service Organic Act, and the National Parks and Recreation Act, among others.

"This is just one more example of the House attempting to push something through the Congress that is extreme and an overreach," David Moulton, senior legislative director for The Wilderness Society, told the Traveler on Tuesday evening. "I think we can beat it in the Senate, but we have to keep up the pressure.”

The House vote was 232-188. Sixteen Democrats voted for the bill, while 19 Republicans opposed it. Whether the Senate takes up the measure is unclear. Currently, there is no companion bill in the Senate, where rules could make it difficult to move a stand-alone bill. However, said Mr. Moulton, a senator could try to amend the package to a "must-pass bill," such as an appropriations measure or transportation bill.

The Wilderness Society official said if the measure somehow became law, it "would allow road building, construction and development on lands that are loved for hunting, fishing, hiking and other recreational activities. This vote was not in the best interest of the people who enjoy the land for its natural beauty.”

The main architect of H.R. 1505 was U.S. Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, who long has sought to free the U.S. Border Patrol from observing environmental laws in its bid to secure the country's borders.

"This legislation is the right thing for this country," the Republican said earlier Tuesday in a release. "At the end of the day, this matter is far too important to go unaddressed and shoring up these trafficking corridors will help close the gaps that are preventing us from having a truly secure border."

General Accounting Office reports, however, have struck down Rep. Bishop's contention that environmental regulations are hamstringing the Border Patrol.

Democrats on the House Natural Resources Committee have launched a website called DRONEZONE that allows Americans to look at national, state, and even Congressional district maps to see if they live or could potentially visit this expanded DHS patrol area.

“This is theater of the absurd,” said Rep. Raul Grijalva, the Ranking Member of the National Parks, Forests and Public Lands Subcommittee. “Republicans have wanted to gut these laws for decades, and each excuse seems to get a little flimsier. They’re not afraid to invent new reasons to get their way, and when those run out they just use the old ones again. The days of scaring everyone by shouting ‘national security’ are long over, and Republicans would do everyone a favor by admitting it.”

Comments

this has very little to do with "security" and much more to do with handing the west over to a wider array of land developers and extractive industries.

Yes, thats why neither land development nor extractive industries are mention in the bill at all. Lee - you see Bishop raping the land in your own shadow.


This bill is just one small step in a larger set of objectives.


So, Mr. Anonymous, care to come out of your own shadow and declare your own personal vested interest?


I have suggestion regarding anonymous posters. Whether we agree with their comments or not they should all be ignored. The latest anonymous on the House bill could be a paid staffer for Representative Bishop. Others on the mountain bike issue may be paid by the mountain bike industry. Some may have legitimate concerns for their safety or employment, but whatever the reason if they don't have the courage to identify themselves stay off the website or be ignored.


Thanks, Roger. Or at least provide some background to explain their stances. Full disclosure is a fine idea. It can be provided without having to disclose personal identity.

Of course, some of these anons could simply be trolls, too.


My personal vested interest? I am a legal American citizen concerned with people entering this country illegally. I am not on Bishop's staff, I don't live in Utah, I don't work for the mountain bike industry, not that any of those would make a difference.


Rick and Lee:

Suggest reading "Worth Fighting For" for some reasons that some of us, not completely taken in by ideology, prefer to remain anonymous, for now.


I can tell everyone what's happened on newspaper blogs that switched from anonymous posting to requiring everyone to post via Facebook, which in turn requires people's real names.

Debate dried up. Discussions arising out of articles on contentious issues went from hundreds of comments to five or six.

And those five or six have tended to be so devoid of any spark that they might as well be the recorded proceedings of the Saskatchewan cosmetology permit appeals board. (Actually, where could I find those minutes for some excellent evening reading?)

I for one would not post under my own name. Why not? If for no other reason than that my boss, or my next boss, or the one after that, or the one after that, might be a Sierra Club or Wilderness Society devotee who thinks that a wheel in a Wilderness would be the work of the devil (the viewpoint of many on these pages, I might add). He or she could find my posts and decide not to hire me or keep me on staff if I'm already there. Simple as that.

Of course if Kurt wants to give it a try, it's his website.


Add comment

CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.

The Essential RVing Guide

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

The National Parks RVing Guide, aka the Essential RVing Guide To The National Parks, is the definitive guide for RVers seeking information on campgrounds in the National Park System where they can park their rigs. It's available for free for both iPhones and Android models.

This app is packed with RVing specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 parks.

You'll also find stories about RVing in the parks, some tips if you've just recently turned into an RVer, and some planning suggestions. A bonus that wasn't in the previous eBook or PDF versions of this guide are feeds of Traveler content: you'll find our latest stories as well as our most recent podcasts just a click away.

So whether you have an iPhone or an Android, download this app and start exploring the campgrounds in the National Park System where you can park your rig.