Where I Stand — Brian Greenspun: This land is our land

Friday, June 2, 2000 | 9:09 a.m.

Brian Greenspun is editor of the Las Vegas Sun.

THIS IS a big land, America.

There are places within her borders that few people have ever seen, let alone figured out how to exploit for personal or financial gain. There are wide open spaces, including millions of acres of land that support intricate ecosystems and others that can support nothing. There are Americans who believe most of the lands should be made available for public and private use and others who believe everything so far untouched should remain that way. This is not a new dilemma, it is one that has baffled environmentalists as well as capitalists since the very early days when we had the desire to exploit but not the means, through the modern age when we have had the means to exploit but have since gained the knowledge that would suggest too much of that good thing is bad.

Enter President Clinton, riding on the shoulders of presidents before him such as Teddy Roosevelt, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower, who have used a 1906 law designed to allow the president to unilaterally protect public lands. While each of them was active in his own time by withdrawing from commercial exploitation millions of acres of lands that have remained a part of the public trust for generations past and future, Clinton has taken a very active role in trying to preserve national monuments on his watch.

Obviously, like everything else he has done -- which, I suspect is what any responsible president in this day and age would do -- there are plenty of detractors and naysayers. Most of them reside in the U.S. Congress. There was a story in USA Today that didn't make a big deal about a recommendation from Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt to the president that he declare four new national monuments in the West under the powers granted him by the Antiquities Act. It was played back a few pages but carried a subheadline that said, " 'We may not have another chance before they are lost,' Babbitt claims." That got my attention because anything to which knowledgeable people attach a priority should do just that.

The story disclosed four areas that Babbitt was suggesting the president close down to commercial enterprise and leave open only to recreation, hunting and grazing. They are the Empire Ranch, which comprises 135,000 acres of Arizona's Sonoran Desert and is home to giant saguaro cactus and a forest of ironwood trees that can grow to be 800 years old; some 52,000 acres in southern Oregon, which some scientists believe is one of the most biologically diverse spots in North America; the Hanford Reach of the Columbia River, where wildlife and spawning salmon abound; and about 164,000 acres in Colorado that contain the remains of an Indian civilization dating back more than 10,000 years. Babbitt, according to the story, fears the artifacts from some 20,000 archaeological sites will be lost to urban sprawl and increased tourist traffic.

I am sure there are at least a dozen more sites similar to these across the country that can and should be designated off-limits to commercial development and, in time, they will be recommended to this or the next president for such action. I wonder, though, whether the next chief executive will have to undergo the degree of anger that wells up in Congress when he decides to do something environmentally sensitive and smart.

The story about Babbitt's recommendations also included references to some detractors in Congress who felt that Clinton is going too far to protect the environment without giving due consideration to "human and property and legal processes we have in this country." Another opponent, Rep. Jim Kolbe, R-Ariz., who is working on a protection bill of his own, said he was disappointed because, "declaring large swaths of land as monuments should require congressional action."

Those in opposition are right. Congress should be taking action to protect old growth forests, environmentally diverse areas that are home to rare and endangered species, archaeological digs that tell us secrets of civilzation thousands of years before our time and wildlife refuges that have somehow remained untouched. But it is not.

By the time the Congress, especially one controlled by people who are for some reason adamantly opposed to doing anything that would upset those who want to exploit every resource regardless of its environmental impact, gets around to protecting these areas, they will already have been abused beyond saving. That's the nature of the legislative beast. Give and take, give and take, say something and do nothing. The status quo remains, and the people and their progeny pay the price in lost opportunities.

There is, of course, a balancing act that must be applied, but it seems we never get that far because the legislation required to protect these important areas of our country never gets off the ground. That is probably the reason why Congress, way back in 1906, gave the president the ability to unilaterally declare these public monuments. It cuts right through the red tape and allows someone willing to take the heat to make the kind of decisions that positively affect generations to come.

We know that Congress doesn't like to act on such controversial matters, but members are not loathe to complain when someone else does. That's what is wrong with politics these days -- there is no real accountability. We allow opponents to tear apart the ideas of others but don't require them to come up with constructive plans of their own to fix what ails us. By buying into the complaints without requiring alternative solutions, we doom ourselves to a status quo that is good for only a very few Americans and usually bad for everyone else.

I don't know if Clinton is going to act on Babbitt's recommendations or even whether he should. But I sense that taking some action is better than not doing anything, especially when passing up the chance to protect these areas may consign them to the commercial dung heap of history, taking with them whatever benefits tomorrow's public could have derived from them.

I have never thought of myself as an ardent environmentalist. Rather, I fancy a title like responsible adult, who has an eye and a keen sense of obligation to future generations. Regardless of how we see ourselves, we should all be able to agree on the need to save what should be saved now and not destroy vital parts of the country solely through inaction or lack of resolve.

If Congress does not like the president using the Antiquities Act to declare public monuments and protect them from exploitation, it should strike the law from the books. In its place, though, there should be the obligation to replace that law with action that protects that which is precious for generations to come.

My bet, however, is that there is a singular lack of courage to do the former and an absence of resolve to do the latter. There is, however, no end to the bitching that will come because there is no penalty to pay for that privilege.

archive