http://www.latimes.com/news/comment/20010224/t000016718.html
Environmental Wobble
The new Interior secretary speaks of guarding natural treasures in one
breath and of oil drilling in Alaska's fragile wilderness in another. Which
is the real Gale Norton?
�����The statement was reassuring, but the vibes weren't quite right.
Secretary of the Interior Gale A. Norton said earlier this week that the
administration does not plan to overturn the host of national monuments
established by President Bill Clinton in his final year in office. Norton
told the Washington Post that she has not "heard any calls" to undo the
monuments, an action that would no doubt trigger the sort of congressional
struggle that the Bush administration would rather avoid right now.
�����But read the fine print: Norton was highly critical of Clinton for not
consulting more closely with local officials and landowners before
establishing the monuments. In the West, that usually means the cattle,
timber and mining companies that have used, and used up, public land at low
prices. Norton also says the monuments--which, it should be noted, belong to
all Americans--may have to be managed "in a way that takes into account
current uses and that better tailors the monuments for local needs and
circumstances."
�����Norton, as a young law school graduate, worked for former Interior
Secretary James G. Watt at the Rocky Mountain Legal Foundation, a champion of
private property rights. Now, as Interior secretary, she talks of wanting to
be "a good steward" of the public estate, of protecting "our national
treasures" and of improving the national parks. Who could oppose any of that?
Yet her critics say her comments are at odds with a record that supports
economic exploitation of the public lands, using the same local-control
arguments that Watt often used.
�����Twenty years ago Watt pledged stewardship even as he tried to open up
sensitive offshore areas to oil drilling and talked of selling off some of
the national parks. Watt talked of preserving the "crown jewels" of the
national parks; Norton speaks of caring for "natural treasures."
�����Let's talk straight. Polishing established jewels has little to do with
the critical issues, which include exploitation of undisturbed public lands
and the relaxation of air and water quality regulations and endangered
species rules on behalf of economic development.
�����Norton obviously is far more sophisticated politically than Watt. But,
as in Watt's tenure, it's being argued that the nation's energy needs demand
the development of oil and gas deposits in wilderness regions, such as the
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. Norton says the drilling in the
Arctic would be "done in an environmentally responsible manner," but the
question is whether any drilling is compatible with such highly fragile
wilderness.
�����Certainly Norton should be judged on her actions. She will be tested
soon enough on a variety of issues--some of them critical to California. As a
start, we urge Norton to embrace the Yosemite Valley plan approved by the
Interior Department after an exhaustive public hearing process in which local
officials and landowners were indeed consulted at length. That would be the
first step on the road to trust.
