Liberty
Matters News Service
April 14, 2004
Bush Wants National Heritage Area Law
The Bush Administration is pressuring Congress to enact a
law promoting the preservation of America's historic places. President Bush set
the National Heritage Area ball rolling when he signed Executive Order 13287 on
March 3, 2003. The Order called for federal agencies to identify and categorize
federal historic properties so the agencies can be prepared to provide
leadership and financial assistance to communities wishing to preserve local
cultural or national heritage assets. In testimony before the U.S. Senate
Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Subcommittee on National Parks, Deputy
Director of the National Park Service (NPS), Randy Jones explained that
"National Heritage Areas must be guided and supported by local communities and
the people who live in them." He said the National Heritage Area program would
involve partnerships "at every level of government." Carol LaGrasse, President
of the Property Rights Foundation of America, presented a different view when
she said; "My criticism has been and remains that the National Heritage Area
program is meant to gradually accomplish federal land use control." "Heritage
Areas are 'greenways' where the purpose is landscape preservation by land use
regulation by government and its surrogates," she continued. Gretchen Randall
of Winningreen agreed stating that a General Accounting Office (GAO) map shows
two heritage areas in Tennessee, the "Tennessee Civil War" and "Blue Ridge,"
encompassing the entire state and one-fourth of Iowa is a heritage area known
as "Silos and Smokestacks." There are currently 24 National Heritage Areas in
18 states, so why the need for this legislation?
National Heritage Areas Testimony
National
Heritage Areas Equals National Silliness
Interior
Department Seeks Legislation for Establishing a National Heritage Area Program
More Bull
As part of a lawsuit
settlement with two environmental groups, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is
proposing to designate 18,471 miles of streams and 532,721 acres of lake and
reservoirs in the Columbia and Klamath river basins as critical habitat for the
bull trout. The designations will cost taxpayers between $230 and $300
million according to an analysis released by the federal government. Michael
Garrity of the Alliance for the Wild Rockies, a party to the lawsuit, scoffed
at the report. "It's not a real economic analysis," he said. "This is voodoo
economics," because, according to Garrity, it focuses on the costs of bull
trout protection and not the benefits. The agency must complete the habitat
designation by September 21, to comply with the court order. About 70 percent
of the costs will come from mitigation (extortion) paid to the agency to
instigate modifications in use, including improved fish passage; reduced water
withdrawals; revised timber sales; and highway projects.
Cost of Bull Trout Habitat Would be $230
Million or More
Idaho Judge Drains Irrigators' Ditches
Federal Court Judge B. Lynn
Winmill has ruled the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is violating the
Endangered Species Act by allowing irrigators to use water that emanates from
or crosses BLM managed land when such action might harm endangered species. The
Judge ruled for Western Watersheds Project (WWP), the organization that filed
the lawsuit to force the BLM to consult with other agencies before permitting
water diversions that could harm salmon, steelhead and bull trout, all listed
as "threatened" under the ESA. The BLM argued it is not required to consult
with other agencies and that it lacks the authority to regulate historic
diversions on public lands or to order irrigators to modernize their equipment.
The judge, who has a reputation for making anti-grazing decisions said; "BLM has the discretion to
impose conditions on the operation of [the] diversions." Jon Marvel, executive
director of WWP said; "This ruling confirms that the BLM cannot allow private
parties to degrade our public lands and streams simply because they have been
doing that for decades." "The time is long past for BLM to require private
parties who want to use federal lands for their own profit to protect our
endangered species and natural resources," he continued.
Western Watersheds Project Wins Court
Ruling on Upper Salmon Basin
$37 Million to Protect Scrub Jay
Charlotte County, Florida Commissioners are
set to vote on a countywide Habitat Conservation Plan, a mitigation plan to
protect the Florida scrub jay. The Commissioners are expected to approve the
plan if adequate funding can be secured. Commissioner Sara Devos naively said,
"We're going to be the first county I'm aware of to develop a countywide plan
which is what the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is pushing for, and I'm hoping
as a result they will look upon us favorably." The Fish and Wildlife Service's
extortion plan will require private landowners to buy two parcels of non-scrub
jay land for every one they want to develop. In addition, landowners must allow
scrub jay inspection on their property and the county must buy 25 acres of land
for every scrub jay family on county property. Currently, about 40 property
owners are unable to use their land because of the bird problem and the County
hopes it will be able to provide relief to them by swapping land, offering land
for mitigation, or outright purchase of their property. It is estimated that
mitigation for existing scrub jay populations will cost $37 million. As usual,
no one knows whether the jays will actually benefit from the unreasonable
demands of the government.
Scrub Jay Relief Comes to Vote