The Military Engineer L January-February L 201086 At the same time, responsible pub- lic leaders have continued to call for conservation and wise management of Americas natural resources. No one has questioned that a healthy environment is essential to the present and future well-being of our people and to a sus- tainable national growth. Most agree that the nature of environmental pol- lution is such that a governmental role is necessary to ensure its control and the proper protection of public health. However, these trends have caused na- tional policy makers to begin to focus on the need for a balance between eco- nomic and environmental objectives. Because of sustained in?ation over the past several years and, in part, be- cause of increased construction costs and higher interest rates, we are in a period of change. Economic policies and political circumstances are causing us to focus on critical choices regard- ing the directions we will take to com- plete the environmental agenda of the 1970s. There are three courses open—to push on, enacting legislation and exe- cuting a policy that expands the govern- ments role in pursuing environmental goals; to swing back from the goals of the 1970s, possibly back to where we were 10 or more years ago; or to hold for a while where we are and, in a sense, ?ne tune to achieve environmental quality. Potent forces are acting in sup- port of all three choices. Regulation Government regulation is not new. One of the more well-known laws, the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, requires the approval of the Chief of Engineers for constructing bridges, damns, and similar obstacles across any navigable water of the U.S. This and other laws have been implemented by restrictive regulations that lean heavily on en- vironmental concerns, together with preserving the economic value of the watercourse. More recently, the Clean Water Act amendments have required a permit from the Corps for nearly all activities associated with the discharge of dredged or ?ll materials into U.S. waters, a subse- quent broad de?nition of which has af- fected prairie potholes in North Dakota as well as the salt marshes of Louisiana. A growing number of people are questioning the appropriate role of the Federal Government in regulating the development of both private and public resources. The long and compli- cated process for controversial permit applications adds to the pressure for change. As legislation is passed and amended, it always requires federal regulations written by well-intentioned public of- ?cials for implementation. Thus, great changes in interpretation and direc- tion can occur not only over time, but among various agencies having differ- ent mandates. A complicating fact is the judicial re- view and interpretation of both law and regulations. De?nitions become broad and the basis for argument becomes available for opposing points of view. The importance of estuaries and re- lated wetlands to marine biology is hardly an issue and the fact of wetland loss is undisputed. Over the years, some states such as Florida have lost a great portion of their wetlands and only 15 to 20 percent of the Lower Mississippi River Valley bottomland hardwoods remain. Louisianas costal marshes are disappearing at a rate of 39 square miles a year. The valuable commercial spe- cies that depend on wetlands include shrimp, salmon, oysters, crabs, ?oun- der, and clams. So, there is an economic basis for the environmental protection of wetlands. For some, it is a question of how to ef?ciently regulate the desired protection. Balancing Concerns In 1981, Congress passed the Paci?c Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act, re?ecting both the economic aspects of developing electric power in the Paci?c Northwest and the environmental sensitivity of preserving ?sh and wildlife values. Through the creation of a Conservation Planning Council, the region will prepare a pro- gram to protect, mitigate, and enhance environmental values while developing a comprehensive electric power plan for the Columbia River Basin. This Act is unique and portends, for the future, provisions for federal, regional, and lo- cal roles in balancing economic con- cerns while maintaining and develop- ing energy sources. Environmental and economic con- cerns considered individually on single issues do not always lead to different conclusions. But today, in an environ- ment of persistent in?ation, an uncer- tain future for available energy, and a better understanding of the ?niteness of national wealth, it is clear that the U.S. can no longer afford to pursue all environmental objectives equally with- out a consideration of their costs. On the other hand, as the environ- mental agenda was constructed in the 1970s, public opinion was solidly be- hind the need for the appreciation of en- vironmental values. That broad support is still present. Our national environ- mental agenda is not a luxury; in most cases, it is a necessity. Where necessary, the maintenance and improvement of environmental quality are basic to the maintenance of a strong economy and a life worth living. The tempering thought for the future is one of balance. We must both ask and answer questions of priority and af- fordability. This nation, once thought so vast and unlimited in potential, now more clearly sees its limitation of wealth. Environmental needs must take their place in line with social and other needs and bear the scrutiny of economic considerations. It is not a question of the nation fac- ing up to its ever-worsening environ- mental problems. It is a question of bal- ancing environmental concerns. Stated another way, certain environmental challenges must be addressed if we are to move forward to a more af?uent and high quality national existence. There are mutual dependencies between na- tional economic wealth and environ- mental quality. Everyone has a role to play in balancing these concerns.
If you would like to view publication without flash plugin, please click on link below
