Sue, not surprising at all that those who are readily speaking against harmful enviornmental policies of the administration, are silenced within their government agencies.
News of NEPA:
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) has been called the Magna Carta of environmental protection because it is the foundation on which all other environmental laws are built. NEPA requires the government to review the public health and environmental impacts of proposed federal projects and has repeatedly saved time and governmental costs by reducing controversy, building consensus, and ensuring that all stakeholders understand a proposed project's impacts.
But the House Resources Committee, led by Rep. Richard Pombo (R-CA) has undertaken an effort to weaken NEPA and remove the public from the decision-making process.
Pompo's the architect for gutting the Endangered Species Act (H.R. 3824) the bill would amend provisions of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973 (ESA) such as replacing the requirement of
"best scientific and commercial data available" with "best
available scientific data," adding new considerations for de-listing
of species, repealing critical habitat requirements, and also
providing grants to private property owners for foregone
opportunities and business losses due to ESA compliance.
Attempting to remove critical habitat protections from the ESA, and restricting citizens from protesting envriornmental policies will open national forests for exploitation - tieing a neat package for industry.
NEPA Draft Report Comments
c/o NEPA Task Force
Committee on Resources
1324 Longworth House Office Building
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
Email:
[email protected]
Fax: 202-225-5929
A sample letter and talking points..........
To the NEPA Task Force:
Please accept these comments on the Initial Findings and Draft Recommendations from the National Environmental Policy Act Task Force.
I am very concerned that the recommendations by the NEPA Task Force would weaken NEPA in profound and fundamental ways.
NEPA ensures balance, common sense and openness in federal decision-making; it's an effective tool to keep Big Government in check.
By making sure that the public is informed and that alternatives are considered, NEPA has stopped some damaging projects or made them less damaging.
Limiting public involvement and weakening environmental review won't avoid controversy or improve projects. NEPA saves time and money in the long run by reducing controversy, building consensus and ensuring that projects are done right the first time.
The recommendations to amend NEPA and embark on drastic regulatory changes that reduce public participation should be rejected. Some of the ways to make NEPA even more effective without amending the Act are to require monitoring of project impacts, provide agency personnel with adequate training and resources, and make mitigation promises mandatory.
