by Todd Benson, a REP member in Virginia published August 22, 2004 in the Roanoke (VA) Times
The current administration is about to put itself in a position where it will have to beg governors if, in the future, it wishes to implement one of the most cost-efficient and environmentally sensitive ways to manage portions of national forests - designation of roadless areas.
Under the new plan, roadless areas will be eliminated, and such areas can only be reconsidered for designation upon the request of the governor of the state where the national forest is located.
In Virginia, 394,000 acres of roadless areas will be eliminated. A few may benefit, but at our collective expense, leaving our land degraded.
Roadless areas are efficient management tools. They cost almost nothing, provide wildlife habitat and contribute greatly to water quality and flood control.
When roads are built, taxpayers subsidize the process. Between 1998 and 2002, taxpayers were saddled with approximately $140 million in forest road construction costs. To add insult to injury, the roads are then not maintained; the maintenance backlog on 383,000 miles of forest roads is estimated at $8 billion to $10 billion, again at taxpayers' expense.
Jim DiPeso, policy director for REP America, the national grassroots organization of Republicans for Environmental Protection, said: "Roadless areas in America's national forests, which produce clean drinking water for millions of Americans, will have far less protection under a proposed Forest Service rule change."
Continuing, DiPeso said: "The weakness of this proposal is twofold. One, citizens who want their drinking water protected could not be assured that governors would file such petitions, and two, there is no guarantee that the secretary would approve them. Assuring protection for drinking water source areas should not be left up to such a foolishly vague standard."
DiPeso is kind. Having to beg another for permission to wisely manage that which you own is more than foolishly vague.
The people of the United States, not the individual states, own the national forests.
The people of the United States own them, in large part, because of the reckless history of the states in managing forested lands.
A reckless management plan, comparable to the pending proposal, was contemplated 100 years ago and, thankfully, defeated.
In Theodore Roosevelt's first message to Congress (the predecessor to what we now know as the State of the Union address), he gave an impassioned plea for reform of national forest policy. Among other things, he sought to transfer forest management to the Department of Agriculture and expand the purpose of forests to provide wildlife management.
Congressman John H. Lacey introduced a bill implementing Roosevelt's plans. The Committee on Public Lands amended the bill by inserting that "hereafter no forest reserve in any State shall be created, enlarged, or extended without the approval or written request of the Governor of such State made prior to the creation, enlargement, or extension thereof."
As later noted by Gifford Pinchot in "Breaking New Ground," "This nefarious states' rights provision would have put pretty much the whole Forest Reserve question to the mercy of the Governors of the public-lands states, most of whom were emphatically hostile to the reserves."
The bill failed and a relieved Pinchot noted that Roosevelt and subsequent presidents would not be required to beg the governors for permission to manage federal lands.
Gov. Dirk Kempthorne of Idaho does not own the Sawtooth National Forest; I do. And I am sure there is nothing in the Idaho Constitution charging Gov. Kempthorne with looking after the property of Virginians or the citizens of 48 other states.
When my servants in the U.S. Department of Agriculture determine that roadless areas are sound management tools for my property, I do not want them going hat in hand to Gov. Kempthorne, or any other governor, for permission.
I hope the ill-conceived management proposal will be rejected.
