The Trouble with Watt

By Peter Staler

The lines are drawn for an epic ecological battle

Depend upon it, sir, when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully.

--Samuel Johnson

Searching for sources, environmentalists customarily quote writers like Henry David Thoreau or John Muir. But these days the heads of organizations like the Audubon and Wilderness societies are resorting more and more to Dr. Johnson.

Why? The answer is that though environmentalists are not about to be hanged, the conservation programs they know and love seem in grave danger of being done in --if not within a fortnight, then soon.

For the past 20 years, the environmental movement has enjoyed both popular support and friends in high places.

Presidents Johnson, Nixon and Carter gave lip service--and often much more --to the idea of safeguarding America's natural resources. Year after year Congress came through nobly, enacting such landmark legislation as the Clean Air and Clean Water acts, and a series of bills designed to protect endangered species. In 1980 the nation's legislators even created a "superfund" to clean up toxic-waste dumps. The new Administration plans to reverse much of that. Says Audubon Society President Russell Peterson, Reagan is "trying to turn back the clock."

Peterson has a case. Faced with the need to save money and increase production, especially of energy resources, the President is more interested in developing land than in preserving endangered animals or ecosystems. Since coming into office he has appointed people with a strong prodevelopment bias to the top environmental jobs. Interior Secretary James Watt, who as a Colorado lawyer used to battle the department he now heads, is only the most prominent example. Another Coloradan, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator-designate Anne Gorsuch made it a practice, as a state legislator, to oppose the EPA'S hazardous-waste and car-emission rules. Fellow Coloradan Robert Burford, chosen to head Interior's Bureau of Land Management, is a veteran of a land-hungry, anticonservationist movement collectively known as the Sagebrush Rebellion, which favors turning federally managed lands over to the states. Even John Crowell, Reagan's nominee as Assistant Secretary of Agriculture in charge of the U.S. Forest Service, used to be counsel to the Louisiana-Pacific Corp., one of the largest buyers of federal timberland in the country.

In the Administration's budget requests for fiscal 1982, the $14 billion Carter allocated for environmental programs has been trimmed to $11.9 billion. Reagan's economic package slashes funding for the three main agencies charged with protection of the environment: $887 million, or 13.4%, from the Department of the Interior; $2.7 million, or 72%, from the Council on Environmental Quality; and $3.9 million, or 74%, from the Environmental Protection Agency. The proposed cuts will hit heavily at such things as coastal zone management, wildlife protection, and development of water resources--except in Western states, where financing for water projects is to be only delayed, not cut off.

Last week Watt declared that the Administration, contrary to earlier statements, had no immediate plans to give back to state or local governments any land now set aside as national parks and wildlife refuges, including such urban parks as Gateway in New York and New Jersey, and Golden Gate in California.

That was a relief, and a surprise, for environmentalists. But from an ecologist's point of view almost every other word, or action, from the Interior Secretary has been bad news:

> Watt has declared a moratorium on the acquisition of more national parkland, despite the fact that parks are now being used by more people than ever. In 1970 more than 172 million visited the country's national recreation areas; last year at least 300 million toured places like Yosemite, Yellowstone and Glacier. He has also invited private concessionaires to take over many more park functions, such as handling tenting and trailer reservations, running information booths and selling food, though the quality and cost of services now being provided by concessionaires have been the subject of three separate congressional investigations.

> Watt has proposed "unlocking" many of the more than 500 million federal acres under his protection for mining, timbering and grazing, despite evidence that those lands now available for development are not being properly used. The Secretary supports proposed legislation that would make it easier for oil and timber interests to prevent the designation, by Congress, of new wilderness areas in national forests.

> Finally, over the opposition of environmentalists and local residents--not to mention Governor Edmund Brown Jr., who last week filed suit against the Federal Government--Watt wants to open four areas off the California coast to oil and gas exploration. According to some opponents, no more than 194 million bbl of oil lie under these areas, which are located near such scenic spots as Point Reyes and Big Sur. Those 194 million bbl. would meet U.S. needs for about twelve days. But Watt insists: "We must inventory our lands ... the only way to determine the quantities of oil and gas is to drill."

Environmental groups are getting ready for the fight of their lives in a variety of ways. The 200,000-member Sierra Club has chosen direct attack. It is circulating a petition demanding that Watt be fired. "We're trying to provide a way for an outraged public to express itself to the federal officials closest to them," explains Executive Director Michael McCloskey. Other groups disagree with this tactic. "We've got to go after specific programs," says Jack Lorenz, executive director of the 50,000-member Izaak Walton League of America. "If we can't go after the program, we shouldn't be in business."

Many of Lorenz's colleagues agree.

Environmentalists like former Senator Gaylord Nelson of the Wilderness Society are taking advantage of the Administration's attitude to build up membership and organize grass-roots support for various threatened programs. But however they approach the ecology war, the next big battle will begin this month in Congress when the Clean Air Act, which expires in September, comes up for renewal. Washington is expected to attack several key provisions restricting industrial pollutants. Among other things, it hopes to encourage the burning of coal and reduce emission standards on automobiles.

Convincing the House and Senate that such measures are wrong may prove difficult. Many Congressmen believe that environmental rules and red tape are clogging the machinery of production and have dangerously delayed U.S. development of coal, oil and gas reserves.

Environmentalists admit that they have sometimes displayed what Peterson describes as "an excess of zeal." But most agree with Lorenz that "knee-jerk, quick-fix budget cuts and land-management policy changes are potentially much more damaging than knee-jerk environmentalism." That point should not be lost on the Administration. Preserving land and water resources today still allows for development at some future time. Uncontrolled development now leaves few options for the future. --By Peter Staler.

Reported by Gary Lee/Washington

With reporting by Gary Lee

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.