Editorial: Bad Environmental Law Will Hobble Recovery

There is much gnashing of teeth as financial and business gurus exchange ideas about how to get the United States out of its financial doldrums. Government playmakers seem determined to hand out cash to stimulate the economy and save jobs. Some business leaders are already putting their hands out, while others, particularly in the field of energy, are advancing thoughts on how to improve the economy while working toward energy independence. Surfacing during talks by the latter is the subject of environmental controls and the impact they have on our ability to “construct” our way out of the current mess. Our ability to solve problems via construction is impacted negatively by overly stringent regulations.

While some may put forth the idea that drastic times call for drastic measures, we would like to rephrase the thought to say that drastic times represent a call for us to get back to common sense. Almost from the first passage of environmental protection laws in the early 1970s, advocates of overprotection wielded their axe against proposed projects, in many cases halting good projects permanently, in many other cases piling up environmental costs to the project so steeply that the work was delayed or reduced in scope.

Another phase of environmental raid on the nation was the glut of lawsuits brought by environmentalists against existing projects. Though it may seem repetitive to use it as an example, the fiasco that developed over the snail darter and the finalizing of the Tellico Dam in eastern Tennessee represents a great example of wasted millions of dollars for frivolous reasons. Most will remember that a wildlife worker claimed to have found an endangered snail darter in the Little Tennessee River, a discovery that resulted in stoppage of a major project that was around 95 percent complete. As it turns out, it was a frivolous suit because there were at the time 77 varieties of snail darters in the streams in the area, and there was no question of endangerment. Still, the issue provided a platform for national debate. One good thing that came out of the tussle was the appointment of an Endangered Species Committee whose responsibility it was to decide whether projects should be stopped, modified or allowed to move ahead, based on the seriousness of the environmental challenge. The Tellico project moved ahead after a lengthy delay—no doubt there were increased construction costs involved—and ultimately the committee was abandoned. We’re not so sure abandonment was the right thing to do.

The Tellico Dam is but one of literally thousands, perhaps millions, of projects that have been impacted negatively by unnecessarily stringent environmental laws. Environmental regulations even invade our kitchens and bathrooms. Many issues have arisen over the matter of abusive enforcement. The value of privately owned land dropped precipitously, for example, when tough and unnecessary environmental restrictions were placed on nearby lakes. In one outlandish case, a landowner cleaned up his undesirable land, planted sod, and eliminated trash that had been dumped on his property. He was ordered to pay a fine and “restore” the property to its original “messy” self because its improvements did not meet environmental standards. In Houston, Texas, a $5 million business development was stopped in its tracks in order to protect the Houston toad, a toad that had not been seen in more than 20 years. California homeowners watched their homes burn because they were not allowed to eliminate brush to prevent forest fires. The law that stopped them protected kangaroo rats.

Foolishness of this sort is not something the U.S. can afford to accept when the nation is in dire financial straits and part of the solution includes increasing the number of construction projects to provide jobs.

A panel of business leaders we heard discussed various ways to move our nation toward energy independence. The ideas varied somewhat, but two points stood out sharply. First. T. Boone Pickens, whose wind project has been put on hold temporarily due to collapse of the credit markets, emphasized the necessity for having a plan. Citing words that had once been spoken to him, he said that a man with a plan could do better than a man without one. Right now there seems no long–term, well–thought–out plan for attaining energy independence. The second point, one to which virtually everyone on the panel agreed, is that construction projects are hindered seriously by environmental regulations.

News reports have surfaced that expound on efforts by President Bush to relax environmental laws during his last days in office. Executive orders that he issues are not written in cement. Congress has a deadline for disapproving them. A new president, obviously, can issue his own executive orders and reverse them.

We are also being told that President–elect Obama is serious about improving the country’s infrastructure and that one of his first goals will be to increase employment.

Elimination of unreasonable and frivolous environmental laws that constrict construction activities is a must if the U.S. is to experience recovery and Obama is to meet his goal.

The Waterways Journal encourages letters to the editor.
Have something on your mind?
Send letters to: jshoulberg@waterwaysjournal.net.
(Please indicate whether or not your letter is intended for publication.)