“We will mine more, drill more, cut more timber.” — James Watt, Ronald Reagan’s first Interior secretary.
As we wait for the incoming Trump administration to identify its nominee for Interior secretary, we can't help but envision what the outcome could be. Among those said to be under consideration, or jockeying for the job, are retiring U.S. Rep. Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming, U.S. Rep. Rob Bishop of Utah, and Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin, all Republicans who favor energy exploration over conservation.
What shouldn’t go unnoticed is that Donald Trump could place the immediate future of hundreds of millions of acres of publicly owned lands — lands that all 321.4 million Americans have a vested interest in — into the hands of a politician who hasn’t shown they have the country’s best interests in mind when it comes to fracking regulations, public lands stewardship, or environmental protection.
- Rep. Lummis has supported legislation that would give states control over fracking regulations on federal lands in their state; has opposed the Obama administration’s climate change program; signed legislation that opponents said “would prevent the EPA from protecting the world class fisheries of Bristol Bay, Alaska” from the proposed Pebble Mine; and voted along the lines of the League of Conservation Voters just 5 percent of the time during her eight years in the House.
- Rep. Bishop has tried time and again to restrict the president’s use of the Antiquities Act to designate national monuments; helped found the Federal Land Action Group, FLAG, which works to transfer federal lands to states; declined requests that he denounce “Bundy-style thuggery and lawlessness on our nation’s public lands;” and been criticized for introducing legislation that opponents claim would weaken the Clean Air Act, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, the National Forest Management Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the Wilderness Act.
- Gov. Fallin has embraced pro-oil policies in Oklahoma; been criticized by the Sierra Club for having “been an absentee governor on all important environmental issues in our state during her term;” signed legislation that prohibited local governments in Oklahoma from banning hydrologic fracking; and in October led a day of prayer “to thank God for the blessings created by the oil and natural gas industry and to seek His wisdom and ask for protection.”
If you believe James Conca, a contributor to Forbes on energy and the environment, who on November 10 wrote that “energy in the new Administration will be just what the industry ordered,” you can further appreciate how any nominee Trump chooses for Interior will be bad for public lands management if you oppose energy exploration, want additional national monuments, and support federal land ownership.
And there has been much speculation over whether Mr. Trump could rescind monument designations bestowed on such places as Katahdin Woods and Waters National Monument in Maine as well as Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in Utah.
The prospect of the next Interior secretary being a hard-line conservative who believes lands managed by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management or U.S. Forest Service should either be given to the states within which they exist or simply opened up to more energy exploration and logging is understandably concerning to those who appreciate public lands for recreation and habitat conservation and oppose rampant, loosely regulated fossil fuel energy production.
Then, too, there’s the economic return from preserving public lands. According to the Center for Western Priorities, one study indicates that 90 percent of America’s public lands already are open to oil and gas leasing, while just 10 percent are set aside for recreation, conservation, and other uses. Too, it's been demonstrated that counties with more protected lands, such as national monuments, perform better economically than counties without such protected areas. Additionally, surveys conducted by Colorado College conclude that majorities of voters in Western states believe public lands should remain under control of the federal government.
While the National Park System may not be directly impacted by energy development under the next administration, it very well could be adversely impacted by land management along its borders.
At the end of the day, we should question whether an Interior secretary who believes in aggressive energy exploration, reducing the size of public lands ownership, and weakening environmental regulations would be acting in the best interests of the entire U.S. population or simply in the interests of a fraction of that population and industry heads.
Comments
Well said, Rick.
RAH???? Sorry, Rick, I forgot where I put my memory. RAH??
OH, you mean Robert A. Heinlein! Gotcha. Just a little slow . . . . .
There is a lesson to be learned from times such as we seem to be facing. It is much too easy to take the good times for granted and become complacent about issues that all-too-often get put on the back burner thinking that there to be plenty of time to deal with them at some more convienient time. Life - and obviously politics - are unpredicable. It is important to take on improtant and sensitive issues when the time is ripe and before they become "institutionalized". The national parks will always be under attack by those who see short-term profit as more important than long-term protection of the priceless value of our natural and cultiural heritage. If the protection of the parks declines during so-called "good times" it makes them even more at risk when the political winds shift - as they may now.
I am not worried about the future of our great system of National Parks. Our parks are woven tightly into the fabric of American history and the American people will not permit their destruction. What I have been worried about is the slow process of the decay of our park infrastructure and lack of staffing over the past several years. I hope this trend is reversed and that we face up to the responsibility of adequate funding of our national parks to keep them safe and well maintained for now and into the future.
I am not so sure about the future of the many national monuments proclaimed during the end of the Obama administration. These sites were proclaimed without proper consultation with the states concerned and in many cases with the local communities. This is where the trouble may come from. They are not funded and face criticism by many people. Not all of these national monuments will survive the next administration.
Harry,interesting post. I am reading Dr. Pyne's latest book, "Fire to Fire", very good. The breath of the book as it deals with the multiple agencies involved, local citizen interests, extractive uses, urban sprawl, and the politics of it all is extremely educational. Touches much on many of the discussions we have on Traveler. In my own view, I hope the monuments stand, it will interesting to see how it plays out.
In NATIONAL PARKS: THE AMERICAN EXPERIENCE, I make this point about our public lands. As national parks, we only save the spectacular leftovers. Most everything "productive" is already gone. Imagine Washington State's forests BEFORE Olympic National Park. And so on. What would Donald Trump be "attacking?" The attack happened a century ago. Indeed, our national parks still have some spectacular leftovers, but leftovers they remain.
Trump would now be attacking the American business community, which effectively controls the national parks. In Zion this summer, there were at least a dozen tour buses parked outside the lodge every day. Who owns those buses? Who buys those tours? Who eats and/or stays at the lodge? The very people Mr. Trump knows best. Tourists with money to spend!
Mr. Obama didn't even know those tourists. A community organizer, he knew nothing about starting or running a business. What he did know--and perfected as president--was how to give a speech. But governing is not about a speech. When I brought serious issues to Mr. Obama's attention, I never heard a peep.
I have, on the other hand, heard from Mr. Trump. Not directly, nor was it an invitation to me personally. But it was uplifting--and very encouraging. I take it that some members of his Transition Team have read some history. In fact, sales of NATIONAL PARKS are currently through the roof. Why? The centennial? Frankly, most people in the Park Service admit to never having read my books--nor those of Stephen Pyne, Roderick Nash, et al. They simply assume, as does the media, that only Democrats are serious environmentalists, with the exception of that honorary Democrat, Theodore Roosevelt.
In my books, you will not notice that mistake. You will not notice an R or a D beside the name of any political figure. In history, the actions speak, not the labels. The labels themselves are constantly changing, is the point. An R or a D of today is totally unlike anything in both parties yesterday. But there you have it--what thinking in sound bites has done to thinking period. We are supposed to believe the label and get indignant. My, God! The country elected a Republican! How could "they" have been so blind!
I warned you in a previous post what was coming, But historians? Hey, what do we know? I know this. In eight years I never heard from President Obama. In eight days I heard from Donald Trump. Relax, good people, and have a drink. And don't believe what you hear from the press. Your national parks are in good hands--the same corporate moguls that founded and opened them, and now reap the billions in tourist dollars they are worth. Kill the golden goose? No president is that stupid, but yes, we will have to remain vigilant about those leftovers that suddenly appear "valuable" for other uses, which itself is nothing new.
Hehehehe. So sorry President Obama snubbed you. Obviously, with monitoring Saturday Night Live and skipping intelligence briefings, Trump has chosen prioritizing you better. Hehehehe.
I agree with Dr. Runte insofar as his comment about what sound bites have done to thinking.
Now we will have governing by Tweetings.
A report on FOX "News" just this morning informed us that the Tweeter in Chief tweeted a tweet about the price of drugs and the pharmaceutical industry's stocks fell with a thud. Boeing was tweeted yesterday and their execs are having indigestion this morning.
The next four years are gonna be about like watching stuff float by in the primary settling tank at the sewage plant.
Look at what sound bites and tweets gave us in the recent election!
The next four years are going to require a lot of very careful thought and action by those of us who are still capable of rational thought. I hope there are enough of us left to prevent a complete derailment of America.
http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/4680858-155/bagley-cartoon-the-strongman