When Congress created the U.S. Forest Service in 1905, it had several clear purposes. Part of the role of national forests was to provide timber and other forest products the country needed, and part of it was to ensure a steady flow of clean water from healthy forests. But the main purpose was to preserve and protect these areas forever, as lands that belong to the public – not to lumber or mining companies, or other private interests. Similarly, when the National Park Service was established in 1916, its mission was “to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein, and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.”
The great conservation movement of the early 20th Century is a proud part of American heritage, as some of the nation’s most beautiful places were protected, or saved, you might say, from homesteading and development. We have been saving them, again and again, ever since. Even the land nobody wanted to homestead, which the government literally couldn’t give away, was finally “saved” in 1976, when all the remaining public land was “reserved” by Congress forever, under control of the Bureau of Land Management. Additional protective status has been bestowed on some of these public lands over the years, including national monuments, wilderness areas, wildlife refuges, wild and scenic rivers, national conservation areas, and several others.
Now another new category is proposed, something called “national historic landscape.” A strange title that begs the question: assuming all rocks and dirt are equally ancient, can one landscape can be much more historic than another? Anyway, pending legislation calling itself the “CORE Act” proposes that status for Camp Hale, the historic home of the 10th Mountain Division between Redcliff and Leadville. The acronym stands for the “Colorado Outdoor Recreation and Economy Act,” and its proponents’ website says it would “protect roughly 400,000 acres of public lands in Colorado, ensuring that future generations can always enjoy our state’s mountains, rivers, and wildlife.”
I’m all for protecting the greatest places on earth, many of which are in Colorado. But before Congress acts to “save” these places for future generations, might someone ask what, exactly, they hope to save these places from?
Some might view the proposed legislation as a solution in search of a problem. After all, every acre of land it seeks to “protect” is already public land. Camp Hale has a fascinating history that certainly deserves to be remembered. That’s why Congress transferred it from the Army to the U.S. Forest Service in 1965. It is in the White River National Forest, where no one is allowed to build any new subdivisions, or factories, or power plants. You can’t even search for arrowheads or pick up rocks there anymore, so what additional “protection” is needed?
Another section of the CORE Act would “protect” several “iconic and spectacular landscapes in the San Juan Mountains.” The bill would add 31,000 acres of new wilderness designations there, explained by citing the inclusion of two majestic fourteeners: Mount Sneffels and Wilson Peak. I think designating those peaks as wilderness is justified. I thought so in 1980 when they were included by Senators Bill Armstrong and Gary Hart in the Colorado Wilderness Act, which created the Mt. Sneffels Wilderness Area. Wait, what? They’re already wilderness? Yes, indeed, so the beauty and popularity of those peaks are being used to sell additional new wilderness designations, areas that do not include those peaks.
The same could be said of the 43,000-acre Curecanti National Recreation Area, which is also included in the bill. It has been a “national recreation area” since 1965, run by the National Park Service, but the bill’s sponsors grieve that Congress has never officially rubber-stamped the boundaries. Obviously, it includes Blue Mesa, Morrow Point, and Crystal Reservoirs, along with the fishing and camping facilities associated with them. Curecanti borders the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park, as well as BLM and Forest Service land, and is surrounded by public lands on all sides.
Some elected officials must think that if they are “legislators,” they must “legislate” – whether anything needs done or not. The most spectacular parts of Colorado are preserved and protected forever, by definition, because they are “public lands,” already controlled by a host of government agencies that guard the territory with the public’s trust, as intended. So why do these places need “saved” again?
Mt. Sneffels Wilderness Area, created by Congress in 1980
Imagine a U.S. Senate candidate being quizzed by the Sierra Club or the Wilderness Society, and asked, “What will you do to protect the most beautiful and irreplaceable public lands in your state?” Then imagine the candidate responding, “Actually, the most beautiful and irreplaceable parts of my state are already protected by law, so I won’t be doing anything further.” Needless to say, such a candidate would not gain the endorsement of the environmental lobby.
This is not just a hypothetical example. Candidates for public office are routinely given surveys by such interest groups, and their answers to the questions determine, in large part, the endorsement – or opposition – of such groups. Thus, it is easy to understand why candidates continuously support legislation to further “protect” public lands with additional designations, especially wilderness. Even that may not be new and creative enough, so officials come up with previously unheard-of management schemes, such as the “national historic landscape” proposed for Camp Hale. They propose new boundaries for the existing Curecanti National Recreation Area, or new wilderness designations where there is already wilderness, as in the San Juan Mountains.
The argument that no protection is ever enough, and that more must always be done, is music to the ears of the environmental industry. So, senators and congressmen dependent on the support of those groups are happy to sing that song, even about public lands that are already protected under a wide range of laws. But why do the environmental groups care so much about adding more and more layers to already existing protections? Why isn’t it enough for the Forest Service to manage uses of Camp Hale, or for the National Park Service to manage Curecanti National Recreation Area? What more legal protection is needed, and why?
Understanding the answer to that question requires an understanding of the environmental industry, and the dynamics of the non-profit world they inhabit.
First, these groups are not really “non-profit” organizations. “Non-profit” is purely a creation of Section 501 of the Tax Code, which defines criteria for some organizations to be exempt from income taxes. But they all raise money, and spend it on operations, and pay themselves, the same as every other functioning business. Many of these groups are actually larger than most businesses. That’s why for many years I have referred to the “environmental industry,” a perfectly apt description.
In fact, it is one of the largest “industries.” Consider some raw numbers. The Nature Conservancy’s annual report lists annual revenues of over $1 billion, and total assets over $7 billion. The Sierra Club collects nearly $138 million a year, has over 500 paid staff members, and boasts total assets in excess of $222 million. The Environmental Defense Fund reports assets of over $273 million and revenue of $221 million, and has over 300 employees in nine cities, including its Manhattan headquarters on Park Avenue. The Wilderness Society reports assets of $65 million, with annual revenue around $40 million. The Natural Resources Defense Council receives over $213 million a year, with assets exceeding $480 million. The National Wildlife Federation took in $97 million last year, with $122 million in assets. The Center for Biological Diversity brings in over $20 million a year, Defenders of Wildlife another $38 million – the list is nearly endless.
One snapshot of the environmental industry, published in the Sacramento Bee, showed that corporations and foundations give to environmental groups at the rate of $9 million a day. It is a massive industry, though technically “non-profit” in the sense that these groups are tax-exempt. Which brings us to the other side of this explanation – the dynamics of non-profit groups.
Now to be clear, the prime movers behind the proposed CORE Act may not be the Nature Conservancy or the Sierra Club. Much support is coming from the National Parks Conservation Association, for example, and from several local groups in Colorado. But it is difficult to tell exactly who many of these smaller organizations really are. They often share some of the same foundation donors, and many groups do not disclose their membership databases, or their donor lists (they are not required to do so). Since local groups are often more effective in swaying public opinion on local environmental issues, large donors frequently create new groups with local sounding names, and run the money through those groups, rather than through national organizations. But even that caveat misses the main point of this debate. Whoever is backing the current proposed bill, the same questions should be asked, namely, why do lands need protected that are already protected?
The non-profit sector works on a simple premise: the sky is falling. People write checks and join groups to help stop outrageous abuses, not to express thanks for a completed task. Thus, no environmental task is ever finished. Rather, immediate action is needed to save the great outdoors from some threat. That always begins with the need to donate, couched in terms that ordinary people at the grassroots level must join to fight the threat of “development,” though in many of these cases there is no such threat. Nevertheless, the effort is effective because most people genuinely care about the environment and want to help stop abuses. That’s how these groups grow in power, influence, and especially money, while their favorite politicians promise to save the last great places.
Even if they have already been saved.
Comments on this entry are closed.