7 5A n E x t e n d e d E x a m p l ewas saving [15] these lands from mining companies for our children and
grandchildren?
The BLM says its hands are tied. [16] Why? Because [17] these lands were set
aside subject to “valid existing rights,” and Conoco has a lease that gives it
the right to drill. Sure [18] Conoco has a lease—more than one, in fact [19]—
but [20] those leases were originally issued without sufficient environmental
study or public input. As a result [21], none of them conveyed a valid right to
drill. What’s more [22], in deciding to issue a permit to drill now, the BLM did
not conduct a full analysis of the environmental impacts of drilling in these
incomparable lands, but instead [23] determined there would be no significant
environmental harm on the basis of an abbreviated review that didn’t even
look at drilling on the other federal leases.
Sounds like [24] Washington double-speak [25] to me. I’ve spent considerable
time on these extraordinary lands for years, and I know [26] that an oil rig in
their midst would have a major impact. What’s more [27], Conoco wants to drill
a well to find oil. Inevitably [28], more rigs, more roads, new pipelines, toxic
[29] wastes and bright lights would follow to get the oil out. The BLM couldn’t
see this, but [30] the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Environmental
Protection Agency did. Both of those agencies recognized [31] the devastating
[32] effects extensive oil drilling would have on this area and urged the BLM to
refuse to allow it, in order to [33] protect the monument.
Maybe [34] the problem [35] comes from giving management responsibility
for this monument to the BLM. This is the BLM’s first national monument;
almost [36] all the others are managed by the National Park Service. The Park
Service’s mission is to protect the resources [37] under its care while the bureau
has always sought to accommodate economic uses of those under its. Even so
[38], the BLM seemed [39] to be getting off to a good [40] start by enlisting broad
[41] public involvement in developing a management plan for the area. Yet
[42] the agency’s decision to allow oil drilling in the monument completely
undercuts [43] this process just as it is beginning.
What we’re talking about is, in the words of President Clinton, a small
piece of “God’s handiwork.” Almost [44] 4^1 / 2 million acres of irreplaceable red
rock wilderness remain outside the monument. Let us at least protect what is
within it. The many roadless [45] areas within the monument should [46] remain
so—protected as wilderness. The monument’s designation means little if [47] a
pattern of exploitation is allowed to continue.
Environmentalists—including the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, the
Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Wilderness Society—appealed
BLM’s decision to the Interior Department’s Board of Land Appeals. This
appeal, however [48], was rejected earlier this month. This is a terrible mistake
[49]. We shouldn’t be drilling in our national monuments. Period. As President
Clinton said when dedicating the new monument, “Sometimes progress is
measured in mastering frontiers, but sometimes [50] we must measure progress
in protecting frontiers for our children and children to come.”
Allowing drilling to go forward in the Grand Staircase-Escalante Monument
would permanently stain what might otherwise have been a defining legacy of
the Clinton presidency.97364_ch04_ptg01_059-078.indd 75 15/11/13 9:50 AM
some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materiallyCopyright 201^3 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights,
affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.