Burning through Rights

Forest fires are not merely incredibly destructive; they also provide opportunity for serotinous cones to open from the heat, allow some species to thrive in newly opened areas and, most recently, prompt Washington politicians to torch environmental laws. This last opportunity was being considered by Sen. Larry Craig of Iowa, who has a more extreme version of President Bush’s Healthy Forests plan and is looking for support.

Sen. Craig’s amendment, perhaps to the Interior appropriation bill or, failing that, Agriculture, adds $1 billion to the Forest Service for fire suppression and would promote thinning on up to 10 million acres of public land (which “shall not be subject to the notice, comment, and appeal requirements of the Appeals Reform Act”), four times the amount the service currently is contemplating. But it also suspends environmental review for timber thinning projects, ignoring the National Environmental Policy Act and the National Forest Management Plan – which means no public comment or dissenting voices allowed to point out poor cutting decisions. And in the event anyone thought this bill was merely about preventing huge forest fires, a provision also stops additional designation of more wilderness area in Alaska’s Tongass, a place that gets nearly 200 inches of rainfall a year and has few fire problems.

But the worst portion of the bill is a single straightforward sentence: “Actions authorized by this section [on site selection and cutting] shall not be subject to judicial review.” Without administrative or judicial review, anyone with even excellent reason to protest has no legal recourse. Such people would be told, in effect, to be quiet or do something desperate.

The Craig amendment would cost the Forest Service plenty for the planned thinning, but because, unlike the president’s plan, a funding source is not clearly identified, it is difficult to say how the proposal would be paid for. Whatever the source of funding, Congress can be assured that Canada, which has been fighting over forestry subsidies for years with the United States, will have something to say about it through Nafta.

Without question Congress should respond to the evidence that regulatory requirements that leave dangerous levels of what becomes fuel for a fire. The Western Governors Association addressed the issue last spring and, while their plan has some problems in its emphasis, it provides three subjects for Congress to consider. Their plan occurs slowly, over the next 10 years; it is based on public review and performance standards; and it offers plenty of chances for people with concerns to be heard. Maine senators are correct to be suspicious of this plan. Both Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe are unhappy with the Craig bill and are looking for an improved alternative. Discussions with western senators to find an alternative are under way this week.

Congress has little time this month to complete an enormous amount of work and a desire to pass something on fire suppression is understandable given the tragedies this summer. But, failing a much-improved alternative to the current amendment, it is better for senators to simply oppose this measure and consider the issue again under less-rushed circumstances.