Liberty Matters News Service
February 11, 2003
Alaska
governor Frank Murkowski has informed Interior Secretary Norton that
Alaska is not interested any more in wilderness areas within its
borders. The Alaskan
congressional delegation last May wrote Sec. Norton asking for a
reinstatement of a 1981 policy that said no further wilderness review
was needed on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management.
That policy, instituted by Reagan Interior Secretary, James
Watts, was rescinded by former Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt in the
waning minutes of the Clinton administration.
The letter stated: “[T]here
are dangerous traps set when reviewing areas for wilderness.
Once an area has been identified for wilderness study, the entire
area is then managed as wilderness until Congress acts to release it.”
There are currently about 56 million acres or 15 percent of the
state designated as wilderness. The Alaskan delegation also asked the Interior Department to
prohibit all new wilderness reviews, including lands under the
jurisdiction of the National Wildlife Refuge System and National Parks.
Environmental groups want the wilderness designation review
policy kept in order to stop a new land plan for the National Petroleum
Reserve. The government is
currently preparing for an oil and gas lease in 2004 involving 9 million
acres of the reserve.
No
More Wilderness Areas, Murkowski Asks
Builders,
developers, landowners and investors filed more than 150 lawsuits last
week, to overturn a far-reaching slow-growth law passed by Loudoun
County, Virginia supervisors. Opponents
of the restrictive land use law are also hoping to use the issue to oust
the slow-growth supervisors from office.
Landowner, big-game hunter and former federal investigator, Jack
Shockey, head of the pro-development group, Citizens for Property
Rights, said the lawsuits were an unfortunate consequence of elected
officials’ refusal to listen to constituents. The new rules cut the number of homes that can be built in
the 300-square-mile area between Dulles International Airport and the
Blue Ridge Mountains by 80,000. Apparently
anticipating widespread opposition to the draconian law, county
officials announced they will add $6 million to the legal defense fund
they established when they came to power in 1999.
Other small communities across the country are instituting
similar protests to anti-growth regulations.
In Colorado, voters in several small towns have rejected
anti-growth measures and are seeking new development.
The light has finally dawned on many that if economic development
is discouraged the tax base shrivels.
“This is very short-sighted,” huffed Elise Jones, head of the
Colorado Environmental Council, a coalition of 85 environmental groups.
“In Colorado, the job market follows workers, and long-term
economic vitality is tied to the protection of our quality of life.
When you lose things that draw people to Colorado, you lose your
economy.”
Nearly
200 Lawsuits Challenge Loudoun Slow-Growth Plan
In Towns
That Slowed Growth, Backlash Stirs
Stock
Market Downturn Has Upside
There
is an upside to the two-year long slide of the stock market.
Charitable foundations have had to slash their contributions to
environmental groups by a considerable amount.
The leader of the grant-making pack, the David and Lucile Packard
Foundation, is slashing its environmental donations by an estimated
$72.9 million for 2000 to 2001. As
a result of the dwindling resources, environmental groups have had to
pull in their horns, lay off employees, close offices, cut salaries, cap
spending and lower ambitions. From
1997 to 2001, the top ten environmental grant-makers increased the level
of donations by 78 percent, but many now have given notice not to expect
more largesse in the near future. Even
Mr. Deep Pockets, Ted Turner, will honor current commitments but will
not award new grants this year. The
Alliance for the Wild Rockies that sued the U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service to list the Northwest bull trout under the ESA cut its 2003
budget to $150,000, down from $400,000 in 2002.
That move eliminated two of its three employees including their
ecosystem defense expert which means the group will not be able to
obstruct as many timber sales. Eco
groups will now be forced to get their money the old-fashioned way,
pounding the pavement and making a valid case.
Welcome to the real world.
Donations
Dwindle As Groups See Growing Risk
The
Sierra Club has jumped on the bandwagon of other environmental groups to
push ranchers off the federal lands.
Instead of using a stick, the Club figures a carrot, in the form
of grazing rights buyouts, will entice ranchers to vacate the range, and
say the plan would “benefit America’s ranchers, taxpayers and public
lands.” Reminiscent
of propaganda from the old Soviet Union, Sierra Club president, Jennifer
Ferenstein said: “Voluntary
retirement of federal grazing permits is a great opportunity for
ranchers and conservationists to work together.”
However, ranchers are winning their own battles with the over
regulating federal agencies. Last
week, the United States Court of Federal Claims denied the
government’s fourth summary judgment motion in Hage v. United
States. The government
had argued that because Hage did not have a current grazing permit, the
stock water and ditch rights the court determined he owned were non-compensable.
The court disagreed and instead found that not having a grazing
permit cannot extinguish pre-existing property rights.
If compensation is awarded to this rancher for the taking of his
property rights on federal lands, just think how pricey those permits
Sierra Club is trying to buy could become.
Sierra
Club
Hage v. US Decision