Military Seeking to Screw Environment

[Timber Loftis]

I do not like it when the government seeks exemptions from laws it passed to regulate us all and improve the environment. If it can make rules, and then ignore them as applied to itself, we are well on our way down a slippery slope.
__________________________________________________

House Armed Services Subcommittee Backs
Exemptions to Three Environmental Statutes

The House Armed Services Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support approved provisions May 9 that would exempt certain military training activities from the requirements of three environmental laws.
By a voice vote, the subcommittee approved changes to the Clean Air Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act contained in the fiscal year 2004 defense authorization request (H.R. 1588).

The changes are part of the Pentagon's Readiness and Range Preservation Initiative described by the Bush administration as an effort to clarify the military's existing responsibilities under five environmental laws (50 DEN A-2, 03/14/03 ).

Rep. Joel Hefley (R-Colo.), the subcommittee chairman, said the version considered May 9 does not include proposed changes to the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act, which are also included in the Pentagon's initiative.

"It is my understanding that [House Armed Services Committee] Chairman Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) may carry in his mark next week modified versions of the provisions, as reported out of the Resources Committee," Hefley said.

On May 7, the House Resources Committee approved a measure (H.R. 1835) that would ease requirements of the Endangered Species Act and Marine Mammal Protection Act. Among other things, the bill would prohibit critical habitat designations on military lands that already have Integrated Resource Management Plans approved by the Interior Department.

It also narrows the definition of the term "harassment" for military training activities that have an impact on marine mammals (89 DEN A-9, 05/8/03 ).

The full Armed Services Committee will consider the provision contained in the subcommittee-approved bill, along with those contained in H.R. 1835, on May 13, a committee source told BNA.

The Senate Armed Services Committee met behind closed doors May 7-9 to consider the entire Readiness and Range Preservation Initiative as part of its version of the fiscal 2004 defense authorization request (S. 747). The committee has not released any information on those sessions.

Extent of Problem Unknown, Democrats Say

The provisions approved by Hefley's subcommittee would amend the definition of "solid waste" under RCRA to exclude explosives and munitions, as well as munitions fragments that remain on an operational range as part of "their normal and expected use."
Under CERCLA, the proposal would exempt munitions that are deposited on operation ranges from being considered a "release" into the environment.

The Clean Air Act proposal would give military training bases more flexibility in complying with state implementation plans to reduce ozone. Each military base would be required to quantify and report impacts on air quality, but would be given three years to ensure that its actions are consistent with a state's plan.

Critics of the plan fear it could result in greater environmental damage and public health risks. They note that the Pentagon has yet to take advantage of existing provisions in environmental laws that allow exemptions in cases of national security and time of war (85 DEN A-7, 05/2/03 ).

Rep. Solomon Ortiz (D-Texas), ranking minority member of the House Armed Services subcommittee, said the panel should have conducted field hearings to better assess the impact of environmental compliance on training activities.

Rep. Barbara Davis (D-Calif.) said she will introduce an amendment during the full committee markup that gives the Interior Department greater authority to help draft integrated natural resource plans. Authorized under the 1960 Sikes Act, the plans are used to manage fish and wildlife habitats on more than 25 million acres of Defense Department lands.

"These provisions are important. They provide for a public process, transparency, and accountability," Davis said. "If we are going to substitute integrated resource management plans for [Endangered Species Act] critical habitat designations, we should have the strongest process possible."

By Mike Ferullo

Copyright © 2003 by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., Washington D.C.

[LordKathen]

Hipocracy at its finest. Jees, whats next? I have a headache from the smoking deal, now this... Where are we headed TL?

[Timber Loftis]

Right. "Free citizens" can no longer smoke in public while the military gets to ignore pollution laws. Hmmm.... Bass Ackwards if you ask me.

[the new JR Jansen]

Sounds like the law is only for a number of people and not for the others. A nostalgic trip to the past by some maybe ?

[LordKathen]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Right. "Free citizens" can no longer smoke in public while the military gets to ignore pollution laws. Hmmm.... Bass Ackwards if you ask me.

Exactly my point. Ironic aye?

[Rokenn]

Repug congress + Repug Senate + Repug President = screw the environment. Are you really that surprised?

Lighten up dudes, you are all being completely ridic. about this. It DOES in fact make sense to exempt the Military from certain laws and regulations and is in fact a quite common practice, not just in the enviro arena. I realize you all are short of being full blown eco-nuts and all...but there are things the Military needs to do and needs to prepare for that are just out of your every day reality. so get over it all ready....sheesh...next you will be whining because they are blowing up the rare and endangered sand ant that grows only on the Militarys live fire range....sheesh

[Timber Loftis]

MagiK, this argument was used in the 80's when Reagan used national security to exempt nuclear sub facilities from NEPA review (which makes gov't agencies consider the environment when undertaking action).

Now, 20 years later, we are suffering the consequences. Any idea how many of the nuke facilities were located on the Hudson River? Lots. Do a web search to find out more about the $20 billion EPA dredging of the Hudson that is taking place to remove nuclear processing contamination.

If their usage was not that harmful, they wouldn't trigger CERCLA or RCRA anyway. Besides, isn't it good practice to police your spent ammo casings?

[/)eathKiller]

The republican's new slogan:

"Don't Give a Hoot! Just Palute!"

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: MagiK, this argument was used in the 80's when Reagan used national security to exempt nuclear sub facilities from NEPA review (which makes gov't agencies consider the environment when undertaking action). Now, 20 years later, we are suffering the consequences. Any idea how many of the nuke facilities were located on the Hudson River? Lots. Do a web search to find out more about the $20 billion EPA dredging of the Hudson that is taking place to remove nuclear processing contamination. If their usage was not that harmful, they wouldn't trigger CERCLA or RCRA anyway. Besides, isn't it good practice to police your spent ammo casings?

Casings [img]smile.gif[/img] yes, however I object to people objecting to lead content of the sands in a firing range [img]smile.gif[/img] not to mention it is usualy big land developers who are trying to grab as much land as they can as close to the non-use areas as possible that cause the problem....answer is....don't buy a home next to a military weapons facility [img]smile.gif[/img] the Hudson river issue ..hmm not as familiar with that as you seem to be. Im thinking it wasnt permitted to dump toxics int he river in the first place and that the companies did it any way. Obviously waterways are not a place where you can dump water moves pretty quickly.....stray islands vieques or deserts like near Camp Pendleton in California are....since land masses don't shift all that fast.