 |
Drilling is a bust |
 |
|||||||
| By: MIKE DOMBECK, Albuquerque Tribune - | |||||||||
| The U.S. Senate's many delays in passing an energy bill were good news for those who care about America's public land. They bought time to address and in some cases resolve a host of contentious issues, although some remaining parts of the bill simply are not in the nation's best interests. One of the bill's highest-profile provisions - opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling - for example, gratefully appears close to being shelved. This is great news, considering the refuge's fragile ecology would be greatly affected for what at best amounts to a year's worth of oil that would reduce our reliance on foreign oil a whopping 2 percentage points - from 62 percent to 60 percent - when pumping at peak capacity in 20 years. But for all the well-deserved attention Alaska has received, the bill agreed upon last week - after closed-door negotiations by Sen. Pete Domenici, an Albuquerque Republican, and Rep. Billy Tauzin, a Louisiana Republican - still contains ecologically and economically unjustifiable provisions that will afflict the entire country, especially the Rocky Mountains. The legislative delay, until Friday when Domenici and Tauzin announced their deal, offered an opportunity for all those concerned to balance energy and environmental policy by following the policy of protecting the Arctic refuge. They should have shelved the rest of the bill's provisions that apparently will compromise the health of America's public land for truly paltry energy returns. One provision, for example, would exempt oil and gas drilling fluids from being considered pollutants under the Safe Drinking Water Act, even though drilling fluids contain toxins, including diesel fuel, that end up in streams and groundwater. The legislation would also open more land in the West, including some National Forest roadless areas, to drilling. This, despite the U.S. government's own estimates that 85 percent of oil and 88 percent of natural gas resources in the Rockies already are accessible and that roadless areas contain perhaps 3 percent of Rocky Mountain gas resources and less than 1 percent of the nation's total gas reserves. Simple conservation measures, many of which the bill lacks, could have saved more energy than is off-limits to drillers in the Rockies. Sportsmen, too, would lose out under the bill. If passed, it would threaten renowned hunting grounds, including New Mexico's Otero Mesa, Wyoming's Red Desert and Montana's Rocky Mountain Front. The bill would force hunters and anglers to share previously protected mountains, prairies and plains with a complex of roads, pipelines, drilling rigs and contaminated reclamation sites. |
Now more than ever, the value of the land comes from people enjoying them and from protecting the ecosystem services they provide us, such as water purification. Today, recreation is the real economic powerhouse of our National Forests. It generates 75 percent of the revenues, compared with 11 percent for minerals and fossil fuels. And it supports nearly 10 times as many jobs. Beyond dollars and cents, our public land also provides critical sanctuary for vulnerable species, some of which would suffer under the proposed bill. Drilling near the source waters of New Mexico's Bitter Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, for example, would likely further imperil several aquatic species. Besides degrading our public land, the bill also tosses out decades of science-based advances in land management. Public land managers are paid by American taxpayers to maintain the land's long-term health. But as the bill was drafted, every land management proposal would have to report any "significant adverse effect" to energy development. This cleverly shifts the burden of proof and cost from industry to the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service, which already are strapped for funds. At best, the measure would stifle land managers' abilities to manage the land as the people desire. At worst, it would set drilling as the first priority on public land. In the end, the bill would effectively put the U.S. Geological Survey in the service of the oil and gas industry, requiring the agency to identify "restrictions and impediments" to oil and gas access on public land. Unfortunately, those "restrictions and impediments" are the safeguards set up to protect elk, mule deer, bighorn sheep, pronghorn and other wildlife, as well as the ecosystems on which they depend. And it would reduce public comment opportunities in the management process, keeping the public at bay in decisions involving their own land. America's public land belongs to all the people. If tapping the paltry sums of energy now off limits would lead us to energy independence, then Americans might support more carefully regulated energy concessions on their public land. But it won't. And the people don't want to see their cherished land trampled to squeeze out a little oil and gas that would have no impact on near-term supplies and prices, and little impact in the long run. Our lawmakers - led by Domenici and Tauzin - should not be sacrificing nature's legacy, especially on public land, for such a pittance of an energy return. |
||||||||
 |
|
 800 Reserve Street, Stevens Point, WI 54481 ph. (715) 346-4122 |
|||||||