McCabe Home Wise Use Main Page

W.J. McCabe Chapter Izaak Walton League of America

October 27, 1994

Briefing Paper #2: The Counties Movement in Northern Minnesota

Alden E. Lind, Ph.D.

During the August 1993 "dog and pony show" of the National Federal Lands Conference a local person thanked that organization for its help and mentioned that efforts had already begun in NE Minnesota to accomplish the purposes which had just been outlined.

That reference was to the "Northern Counties Land Use Coordinating Board," a joint powers board which now has 8 affiliated counties, Cook, Lake, St. Louis, Itasca, Koochiching, Lake of the Woods, Clearwater, and Marshall. In the agreement establishing this board they give its purpose as:

"...to gather and disseminate information; to consider matters of common concern; and to assist member counties and other units of government or regional organizations in the formulation of land use plans or general policies needed for the protection, use and development of lands and natural resources. These purposes shall include an understanding and consideration of the common culture, similar customs and interdependent shared social and economic condition."

Now, that doesn't sound so bad, does it? But, it acquires a more sinister meaning as one proceeds to consider what those high sounding purposes entail as they are reflected in "wise use" efforts elsewhere. Let me provide one example from the August 1993 newsletter of the National Federal Lands Conference:

"NEPA and other federal laws require federal agencies to coordinate federal environmental and land planning activities and programs with existing plans of county governments. Hence, a county must have at least a generalized plan and planning process for the agencies to coordinate with. The term "coordinate" possesses special significance. Black's Law Dictionary defines "coordinate" to mean "equal, of the same rank, order, degree, or importance, not subordinate." Congress does not use the term coordinate liberally. When it does, it is directing the agencies to do more than consult and/or cooperate. To consult and/or cooperate places the agency in a superior position and it can ignore input it receives from a process of consultation and/or cooperation. Coordination, on the other hand means the agencies must treat the county government as an equal - - government to government - - and sincerely attempt to include the county plans, ideas, and needs into planning and implementation activities."

Are you confused by what has just been asserted? First, they assert that county ordinances are equal to federal and state laws. They do this by treating the term "coordinate" as an adjective or noun rather than as a transitive or intransitive verb. The entire meaning of the law is changed in a manner utterly at odds with the legislative history and clear intention of the law.

What NEPA does say is this:

Sec. 101. (a) The Congress, recognizing the profound impact of man's activity on the interrelations of all components of the natural environment, particularly the profound influences of population growth, high-density urbanization, industrial expansion, resource exploitation, and new and expanding technological advances and recognizing further the critical importance of restoring and maintaining environmental quality to the overall welfare and development of man, declares that it is the continuing policy of the Federal Government, in cooperation with State and local governments, and other concerned public and private organizations, to use all practicable means and measurers, including financial and technical assistance, in a manner calculated to foster and promote the general welfare, to create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony, and fulfill the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future generations of Americans.

The Federal Government is to cooperate with subnational governments and other public and private organizations to achieve the purposes of NEPA. Clearly this section does not suggest that Federal actions are susceptible to the veto powers of any other body, public or private.

In Section 102 of NEPA it is provided that:

(D) (iv) after January 1, 1976 the responsible Federal official provides early notification to, and solicits the views of, any other State or any Federal land management entity of any action or any alternative thereto which may have significant impacts upon such State or affected Federal land management entity and, if there is any disagreement on such impacts, prepares a written assessment of such impacts and views for incorporation into such detailed statement.

In Section 104 we find the following:

Nothing in Section 102 or 103 shall in any way affect the specific statutory obligations of any Federal agency (1) to comply with criteria or standards of environmental quality, (2) to coordinate or consult with any other Federal or State agency, or (3) to act, or refrain from acting contingent upon the recommendations or certification of any other Federal or State agency.

Now, the National Federal Lands Conference material indicates that "clearly NEPA requires federal agencies to preserve culture and heritage." It continues on to state that "significantly, Congress' policy regarding NEPA states that cooperation and coordination will occur with "local governments," and that the culturally pleasing surroundings and cultural aspects of community will be preserved so as to support diversity and variety of individual choice."

Again they distort what Congress clearly intends. Indeed, in Sec. 101(b) we find the following:

In order to carry out the policy set forth in this Act, it is the continuing responsibility of the Federal Government to use all practicable means, consistent with other essential considerations of national policy, to improve and coordinate Federal plans, functions, programs, and resources to the end that the Nation may----.... (4) preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national heritage, and maintain wherever possible, an environment which supports diversity and variety of individual choice.

NEPA is about protecting the environment and it is in that context that this section is to be read. It refers to preserving our "national heritage," not to any alleged right to exploit that heritage. Clearly NEPA seeks to balance environmental protection and other values but in no way can it be read to confer upon counties or any other jurisdictions or groups a unilateral "right" to decide just what would do harm to that national heritage. And, the term diversity, too, must be read in the context of balancing interests on a national basis, not as pertaining to some fanciful "right" to destroy the heritage in ones back yard irrespective of national interests and considerations.

Back to Briefing Papers Main Page

Back to Wise Use Main Page