|
<br />uc~-~,-~~ ~~158 FROHIH.B.S.S.
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />',. a
<br />~...' c-
<br />ii~i}. .~
<br />-",~-",
<br />0')
<br />.;:...
<br />o
<br />
<br />~;~~l t
<br />
<br />According to testimony from Ms, Mc(;lnty. the
<br />Amc:rican Heritage RIvers initiative (AHRI) is intended
<br />to 'support community~ed drom to ~taliZe local
<br />economies, protect natur.ll resoW'Ces and the en-iron-
<br />ment, and pr=ve historic and cultur.ll resources. "
<br />But notwithstanding the feeJ.good sound bites, aitics
<br />assert that the program doa not protect rivetS-it actu-
<br />ally provides for' deveJ.opmenl of the ten rivers selo:cted
<br />in the presldentW oompctition. creating riverbank
<br />developments inducling ~=ional and residential
<br />strUctures of uodC1:ennined size and scope and river
<br />tr2I1Spottttion systems. Funher, the Progx2DI does what
<br />it does through an unauthorized =ension and deleg>-
<br />tion of feden.l power, providing for a fedct2lly funded
<br />ri-'cr .na>igato.... to be the fin21 arbiter on alllssues
<br />concerning AHR!, A "river community'" coll1ll1lttee
<br />m~ up of nonelected officials in a new quasi-federal
<br />regulatol)' jwisdiction is to make all drosions for' the
<br />river and within ilS watershed, which w!ll often
<br />indude immense tracts of land offecting pro~ 0'W)1-
<br />ers br beyond the river.
<br />AHIU was introduced In President Ointoo's State of
<br />the Union address, February 4, 1997, and fOrmally instI.
<br />tuted with Executive Order 13,061, September 11,
<br />1997. din:cting fedeta.1 agencies to implement the pro-
<br />gram, President CUnton ~d in his introduction that
<br />'we have to tmke sure that the rivers that run'through
<br />them [the cities] are good, dean rivas." But a number
<br />of feden.l Statutes and congressionall}" authorized feder.
<br />al progntDS already address eomprehensively the issues
<br />of dean water and ruraJ development while a new fed-
<br />eral program created wholly by executive order creates
<br />more legal questions than it doa river prorection or
<br />development.
<br />National environmental Pror..ction Act. AHRl is
<br />an affront to the protections pro>ided by the: tirst envi-
<br />ronmental st:ltute-the National Environmenul '
<br />Protection ACt (NCPA), !.'iEPA r~s that any "major
<br />fede:ral action significantly offc:cting the quality of the
<br />hum:an environment" must be pteceded by an environ-
<br />mental assessment and a subsequent environmental
<br />im~ statement. when such actions are proposed-
<br />long before implanent:ltion. The CEQ plan for AHRI
<br />has cut through this sututol)' requirement- -redtapc"
<br />was the term used-as promised and has proceeded to
<br />develop itS OWtl criteria for award and inlple;nentation
<br />of environmenrally destrUcth-e projecu.
<br />Separation of Powws, Separation of powers is a
<br />tund2mental principle of collStitutlon:LI govemment,
<br />AHRI is a =jor feden.l initi3.tive which is not onJ~"
<br />NOT authorized Or manc.lared by Congress, but for
<br />which spending was expressly prohibited by the 1998
<br />Budget Act, If the SOOctity of constitutional principles is
<br />not enough, the practical problems of not follo....ing
<br />the governmental traditions inhe~nt in the separation
<br />of powers doctrine are evident hen::, Whilc Vice
<br />President Gore ~d ~ his National Performance
<br />
<br />36:Z
<br />
<br />10.970 247 8827
<br />
<br />PAGE
<br />
<br />3/4
<br />
<br />Re>;cw StatuS Rcpon: that AHRI is an example of the
<br />"trUe spirit of reinventing government,. it acrualIy cre-
<br />ated a major overlap with another existing and congres-
<br />sionaUy authorized fedetal program. The Rural
<br />Developmem: hrtnersbip, est:ablIshed under lhe Bush
<br />,\.tlmlnl......tion in 1991. addresses the issue of coordi.
<br />nated rural economic development and is already at
<br />....-ode In almOSt 80 pereent of the States,
<br />5_ Lzws and PrtrIaU Property Rigbts, Srarc sover,
<br />eignty is .e~usaaed in lhe Tenth Amendment and the
<br />corurol of the StatCS ova- issues like the enviroMtent. nat.
<br />ural re:sources, land use, = rights and private property
<br />riglIts has long been acknowiedged and accepted, subjCCl
<br />only to apress exereise of congressional PO"';~ to regu-
<br />late interstate co=e in the best in= of all
<br />AmCllc2ns. 1bat kd=1 power does not arise from the
<br />is5uance of ac:cutive otdel's, Generations of common law
<br />rights and regulatoxy progr.uns protected 3Ild enf<mXd by
<br />....re gm-ernmaus c::umot be so easily swept aside, Any
<br />pr:iv>re p!1)j>dtY owner within the watershed area of
<br />rivers chosen for participation in lhe AHRl will be subjea-
<br />ed to new limitations on the use of their propert}', r2ising
<br />with alarm questions abouI: the federal go>'cmment's legal
<br />authomy for ttIis imrusion and whc:ther these impacts
<br />amount to constitutionally prohibited "takings" of privarc
<br />propc:n:y without just compensation, The western States
<br />~ a complexity of srare-b2scd water use tights. involv.
<br />ing the clIstribulion of scarce water resouteeS that have
<br />been in pbcc for decades and that are carefulI}" guarded,
<br />AHRI would aeate a qua.skegulatOty O'"Crlay that seeks to
<br />affect the use of water/property rights.
<br />Public Norice and Comment, The Administrative
<br />Procedure Act r~s a public "notice and comment"
<br />period on any federal rulemaking :lCtivity. The fact that
<br />CEQ did not call AHRl a rulenWdng activit)- or that
<br />they claim to add "no new regulations or rules" is irrel-
<br /><:vant, A rule i5 defined as "the whole Ot a part of an
<br />agency statement of genen.l or particul2r appliClbility
<br />and future effect designed to implcment, Interpret or
<br />pttSaibe Ia... 01 policy. Or ~escribing the organi2ation.
<br />procedun: or practice requirements of an agency,' The
<br />Ointon .t1m;n;<tr.llion, through CEQ, cl2i.m.s that the
<br />creation of this ne".. federal program. was not ruIemak-
<br />ing and that the Implement:ltlon of the new program
<br />did not req:llre not:ie:e_~d eomment rulemaklng pro-
<br />cee<ling5 because the new program had no rules, While
<br />this dubious argument may rai5e more concerns than it
<br />scnles, the essence of the issue is that ~ has
<br />recelved neither congressional approval or public
<br />input. yet it seeks to crC2.te an extensi.-e new program
<br />of federal. regularoxy influence into the very centc:r of
<br />American life, the protection and use: of OUt environ-
<br />ment and our property,
<br />Congressional opposition to ~ included a
<br />requcsr from fifty.five member.! of the House of
<br />Representatives and tifrt:en senators to extend the COm,
<br />ment period on the abbreviated Federal Register notice
<br />
<br />!\'RlI:E Sum"," 1998
<br />
|