THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Friday, May 5, 1995 TAG: 9505040133
SECTION: VIRGINIA BEACH BEACON PAGE: 06 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Letter
LENGTH: Medium: 72 lines
It's a shame Beth Barber couldn't have written a more balanced column than ``The Green Choir'' (Beacon, April 7). She has painted those of us who support the environmental laws in place for the past 20-25 years as environmental radicals.
``Risk assessment'' (S. 343) and ``takings'' (S. 605) are now being considered in the Senate. ``Risk assessment'' would require agencies that protect our health, safety and environment to go through a lengthy new 22-step analytical procedure to issue a new rule or keep an existing one. A cost/benefit analysis would require them to put a price on health and environment, which is difficult to do. ``Risk'' allows scientists employed by potential polluters to be on peer panels, which could overturn the rules. It also allows, even invites, lawsuits at any step along the process. It's a recipe for gridlock.
The EPA already goes through a review process before issuing rules. Cost is already balanced with health and environment. But under ``risk,'' cost is the main measure of consideration. EPA Administrator Carol Browner said that if this had been law in the 1970s, leaded gasoline and DDT probably could not have been banned.
``Takings'' holds that wetlands and endangered-species laws have been too burdensome. But rather than debating the merits of both and reforming the areas that need improvement, this bill would probably eliminate administration of both by making it too expensive. Is this compromise?
It's not as if permits aren't issued to the public every day for certain activities in wetlands and/or endangered-species areas. It's just that major activities rightly require more review and more safeguards to protect the public. Environmental laws are not about stopping development; they're about protecting property and people from nuisances that could go on uninhibited if not for these laws. And in administering these laws, we conserve natural resources and maintain a healthy environment to pass on to our children.
Kathy Spencer
Virginia Beach
Trust in feds at risk
Public confidence and trust in government are at a record low and falling. Presence at a recent U.S. Senate committee hearing confirmed this belief. On the committee's agenda was the local issue of seasonal Back Bay Refuge dike closures, impacting hiker, biker and state vehicle entry into neighboring False Cape State Park. The Fish and Wildlife Service spokesman announced proposals to relax both the time period and some vehicle restrictions. The Virginia officials present sat in shock! Why wasn't this offer brought to the table before?
In the public comment period, the representative of a local so-called ``Citizen for Solutions'' group, which is presumably objective and unbiased, sat with refuge representatives. This was not surprising, as she is a vocal refuge supporter and volunteer. (Unbiased?) What was unexpected was her testimony, using ``I'' frequently and the ``we'' of the citizens' group only once. Only those recommenda-tions known to be acceptable to the Fish and Wildlife Service were presented, not all of the proposals discussed by the group.
In the end, the committee chairman admonished both sides and directed them to resolve the issue without further referral to Congress.
How can a solution be reached if one of the parties to the problem cannot be trusted?
Charles Traub III
Virginia Beach by CNB