Environmental Wobble

The statement was reassuring, but the vibes weren’t quite right. Secretary of the Interior Gale A. Norton said earlier this week that the administration does not plan to overturn the host of national monuments established by President Bill Clinton in his final year in office. Norton told the Washington Post that she has not “heard any calls” to undo the monuments, an action that would no doubt trigger the sort of congressional struggle that the Bush administration would rather avoid right now.

But read the fine print: Norton was highly critical of Clinton for not consulting more closely with local officials and landowners before establishing the monuments. In the West, that usually means the cattle, timber and mining companies that have used, and used up, public land at low prices. Norton also says the monuments--which, it should be noted, belong to all Americans--may have to be managed “in a way that takes into account current uses and that better tailors the monuments for local needs and circumstances.”

Norton, as a young law school graduate, worked for former Interior Secretary James G. Watt at the Rocky Mountain Legal Foundation, a champion of private property rights. Now, as Interior secretary, she talks of wanting to be “a good steward” of the public estate, of protecting “our national treasures” and of improving the national parks. Who could oppose any of that? Yet her critics say her comments are at odds with a record that supports economic exploitation of the public lands, using the same local-control arguments that Watt often used.

Twenty years ago Watt pledged stewardship even as he tried to open up sensitive offshore areas to oil drilling and talked of selling off some of the national parks. Watt talked of preserving the “crown jewels” of the national parks; Norton speaks of caring for “natural treasures.”

Let’s talk straight. Polishing established jewels has little to do with the critical issues, which include exploitation of undisturbed public lands and the relaxation of air and water quality regulations and endangered species rules on behalf of economic development.

Norton obviously is far more sophisticated politically than Watt. But, as in Watt’s tenure, it’s being argued that the nation’s energy needs demand the development of oil and gas deposits in wilderness regions, such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. Norton says the drilling in the Arctic would be “done in an environmentally responsible manner,” but the question is whether any drilling is compatible with such highly fragile wilderness.

Certainly Norton should be judged on her actions. She will be tested soon enough on a variety of issues--some of them critical to California. As a start, we urge Norton to embrace the Yosemite Valley plan approved by the Interior Department after an exhaustive public hearing process in which local officials and landowners were indeed consulted at length. That would be the first step on the road to trust.