Senate bill could imperil parks: protections for parks, wildlife areas and historic sites may be at risk in Senate version of transportation bill.There is growing concern that the Senate version of the long-awaited reauthorization of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century
The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) was enacted June 9, 1998, as Public Law 105-178. (TEA21) will contain an unacceptable compromise that would reduce hard-won provisions that protect parks, wetlands, wildlife areas and historic sites from destruction by highway construction projects. This bedrock language, enacted nearly four decades ago, is found in Section 4(f) of the Transportation Act; it requires transportation agencies to avoid parks, wetlands and wildlife areas, and historic sites unless there is no other "feasible and prudent" alternative to their use. This requirement has saved thousands of acres of parks and protected public lands from encroachment An illegal intrusion in a highway or navigable river, with or without obstruction. An encroachment upon a street or highway is a fixture, such as a wall or fence, which illegally intrudes into or invades the highway or encloses a portion of it, diminishing its width or area, but since its enactment. When TEA 21, the current six-year authorization, expired on Sept. 30, it was extended for five months until the end of February 2004. Progress on the reauthorization bogged down when other legislative priorities took precedence. Few informed observers expected that Congress would be able to enact a long-term reauthorization of the transportation bill before presidential year election politics in 2004 would intrude intrude, v to move a tooth apically. , and there is the matter of an approximately $100 billion difference between the Bush administration's projected cost of $247 billion and the $355 billion estimate for Congress's version. However, the House and the Senate have been crafting their own versions of a multi-year reauthorization bill, and both versions are making their way through Congress. The belief now is that a final bill may be able to be passed in time for the Fiscal Year 2005 budget cycle. The administration's version of the reauthorization bill, tortuously titled the Safe, Accountable, Flexible and Efficient Transportation Equity Act for 2003 (SAFETEA SAFETEA Safe, Accountable, Flexible and Efficient Transportation Equity Act ), was released several months ago, but Congress did not embrace it, opting instead to pursue slightly different versions of a reauthorization bill. SAFETEA has a number of unacceptable changes to Section 4(f) that would eliminate definitive, clear language that mandates protection of protected classes Protected class is a term used in United States anti-discrimination law. The term describes groups of people who are protected from discrimination and harassment. The following characteristics are considered "Protected Classes" and persons cannot be discriminated against based on of lands and replace it with highly subjective discretionary approval procedures. In fact, the administration's proposed changes to Section 1603-4(f) are so egregious e·gre·gious adj. Conspicuously bad or offensive. See Synonyms at flagrant. [From Latin that, in the opinion of some legal scholars, they would effectively reverse the landmark decision A landmark decision is the outcome of a legal case (often thus referred to as a landmark case) that establishes a precedent that either substantially changes the interpretation of the law or that simply establishes new case law on a particular issue. of the Supreme Court in the Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402 (1971)[1], is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that established the basic legal framework for judicial review of the actions of administrative agencies. case. The Senate has not shown an inclination to endorse such far-reaching changes to Section 1,(t) language, but it is apparently looking to include a new type of exemption, titled "minor impacts." On the face of it, exclusions for "minor impacts" would not seem to merit cause for great concern, but early discussions with congressional staff have exposed potentially serious problems. The procedure that may be proposed would call for the local or state agency with jurisdiction to determine what was "significant," and then respective state departments of transportation would make a determination if the impact was "minor." There would be no recourse to this determination except litigation An action brought in court to enforce a particular right. The act or process of bringing a lawsuit in and of itself; a judicial contest; any dispute. When a person begins a civil lawsuit, the person enters into a process called litigation. . The bottom line is that the proposal to include "minor impacts" may not be innocuous in·noc·u·ous adj. Having no adverse effect; harmless. innocuous (i·näˈ·kyōō· , and that there is no adequate reason to change the statutory protections of Section 4(f). NRPA NRPA National Recreation and Park Association NRPA Natural Resources Protective Association (Staten Island, NY) NRPA Niagara Regional Police Association (Canada) NRPA National Rifle and Pistol Association members are urged to contact their senators and ask them to resist any change to Section 4(f) protections, which are too important to change solely to achieve faster project delivery. There are many solid ways to improve project delivery; relaxing or revolting the bedrock principles that protect parks, wildlife areas, wetlands and historic places are not among them. The quickest way to reach your senators is through the Capitol switchboard at 202-224-3121. You can also call their district offices in your home state. Locations and phone numbers for those offices are found by going to www. capwiz.com/nthp2 and clicking the Elected Officials tab at the top of the Legislative Action page. If you cannot speak with your senators directly, ask fort their staff aide who handles transportation issues.--Richard Dolesh, NRPA Public Policy Staff |
|
||||||||||||||||||||

Printer friendly
Cite/link
Email
Feedback
Reader Opinion