Rescue Threatened Laws

EARTHKEEPING NEWS
A NEWSLETTER OF THE NORTH AMERICAN COALITION FOR CHRISTIANITY AND ECOLOGY

Volume Four, Number Two
November/December 1994

Call to Action:

Rescue Threatened Environmental Protection Laws

Most Americans want environmental protection laws like the Endangered Species, Clean Water, Safe Drinking Water, and Superfund Acts, to be strengthened. They are all in danger of being weakened in the next session of Congress.

Phrases to look for in anti-environment messages to Congress are: Takings, Unfunded Federal Mandates and Cost-Benefit Analysis, or Comparative Risk Assessment — a triple threat to protecting our public air, water, land and wildlife.

Takings. The Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution protects private property from unfair confiscation, or Taking. It requires the government to pay compensation when a regulation places an unfair economic burden on an individual, such as reducing property values . The courts decide when a government regulation reduces property values so much that it becomes a Taking.

Radical advocates of property rights now argue that any government action which lowers the value of private property in any way requires compensation, and that such rules should be set by Congress instead of by the courts. They want the government to pay them not to pollute or destroy the environment. On the other hand, they advocate government Givings, in continuing large taxpayer subsidies for agribusiness, mining, logging and grazing on public lands.

Cost-Benefit Analysis and Comparative Risk Assessment. Advocates of these procedures argue that all government laws and regulations should be required to identify the costs of their implementation, quantify the benefits in economic terms, and ensure that costs do not exceed the benefits. Government agencies would have to measure precisely the risks being regulated, and to compare those risks to others that people face. These procedures assume scientific and economic tools that often do not exist. They would consume large amounts of time and money and effectively hamstring government agencies so that they could not enforce the environmental laws. It is far easier to measure the cost of regulations than to weigh the benefits. Proponents fail to consider the spiritual and social costs of not protecting our environment and communities.

Unfunded Federal Mandates. Over the last 15 years federal funding has dropped for mandated state and local environmental protection programs. A proposal in Congress in response to "unfunded mandates," is to exempt states and cities from all federal laws and regulation that are not fully funded by Congress. While governors and mayors complain about the declining percentage of federal grants devoted to environmental projects, they ignore the massive amounts of federal aid to states and cities with few or no strings attached. They ignore the fact that pollution knows no political boundaries, and that providing a safe and healthy environment has become a basic duty of all levels of government.

A solution to the unfunded federal mandates is to shift federal, state and local budget priorities to pay for the programs supported by the public. Environmental bills should be paid for by polluters, not the public at large.

Ask your Senators and Representative their views on the three arguments above for weakening environmental protection. For the sake of our ecosystems and future generations, can we afford to weaken the Endangered Species Act and other environmental protection laws?