Some of the most damaging provisions of the bill would:

  • Direct federal land management agencies, before “taking any action” (which could include actions to protect wildlife and habitat) to determine whether such actions would have “a significant adverse effect” on energy development. This could make it impossible, for example, for managers to make management decisions necessary to protect sensitive breeding grounds or migration corridors. (Sec. 346)
  • Allow the Interior Department to designate utility and pipeline corridors across public lands without seeking public input through the land use planning process. (Sec. 351)
  • Require the US Geological Survey to identify various “restrictions and impediments” to the development of federal oil and gas deposits. These “restrictions and impediments” include policies and regulations, such as seasonal development stipulations that protect wintering herds of elk, mule deer, bighorn sheep, and pronghorn, that are the result of hard-fought compromises between sportsmen and the oil and gas industry, and serve to protect wildlife and fish resources, wild lands, and cultural and historical values on public lands. (Sec. 345)
  • Exempt oil and gas activities from the Clean Water Act and prohibit drilling fluids (such as tar gels and diesel fuels) from being considered pollutants under the Safe Drinking Water Act. These fluids have the potential to end up in the streams and rivers important to hunters and anglers. (Sec. 328)
  • Allow industry up to two years to comply with drilling permit application requirements, but allow the BLM only a few days to approve drilling permit applications. This would essentially deny the public the opportunity to participate in critical decisions about how federal lands are managed. (Sec. 349)
    -- source National Wildlife Federation

    • Energy Bill provisions threaten wildlife habitat on public lands

    Americans expect and deserve access to public lands for a variety of uses as mandated under law. Public lands are exactly that, public. They are owned by all citizens of the United States. Many of us use public lands to hunt, hike, fish, camp or just simply enjoy the beautiful views.

    The question is, should we allow industry to dominate public lands with abusive environmental practices. That is what the current Energy Bill proposes. One aspect of the bill would essentially do away with public input on how public lands are to be used should they be considered for oil and gas development.

    Obtaining enough energy to sustain our comfortable lifestyles is a concern for many. Historically, we have relied heavily on fossil fuels, however we need to progressively wean ourselves from these finite sources of fossil fuels – coal, oil and natural gas.

    More importantly, we ought to be concerned and take issue with the fact that fossil fuel processes pollute our land, air and water resources. According to the 2001 Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) report, Nevada ranks thirty-two out of the fifty-two states in both Toxic Chemical Releases and Mercury from Electric Utilities. This concern would be seriously increased if we allow industry to develop oil and gas on our public lands without federal environmental controls. What will happen to our pollution ratings? How much more of these deadly toxins will we breathe? How will water and land pollution increase as a result of these actions? Equally importantly, how does it affect the water that we drink and grow our crops with – the land that those crops grow on?

    Fortunately, Nevada is abundant in renewable energy. Not only do we have an endless supply of solar energy, we have wind, geothermal, biomass and hydroelectric power. Nevada is in the forefront for harnessing of renewable energy. According to the Nevada official Web site, we currently have nine geothermal plants and one solar plant in operation for electricity. Also, there are six plants under contract; two of which are wind energy.

    All of these first-class facilities will be in serious jeopardy if the federal proposed energy bill becomes law.

    The reasons:
  • the bill erects new barriers for renewable electricity generators that need access to transmission lines;
  • it weakens current law by repealing the Public Utility Regulatory Policy Act; and
  • it lacks a Renewable Electricity Standard (RES). In addition, the bill ignores the views of 53 Senators and the 70 percent of Americans that support the RES.

    Harnessing more renewable energy sources can create new jobs. It can reduce our dependence on both foreign oil and the need to find new minuscule sources of oil and natural gas in the United States. It can diversify our energy supply and equally important reduce toxic contaminants to air, water and land.

    Accordingly, adopting energy efficiency measures in both electricity generation and fuel economy standards will reduce our burning of fossil fuels and subsequent emitance of pollutants.

    We as a nation need energy policies that not only increase our energy security but also protect our natural resources. It is imperative that we adopt a balanced approach for our energy needs.

    I implore you to contact Sen. Ensign and ask him to join Sen. Reid in opposing the current proposed Energy Bill and start anew with a balanced energy plan that will benefit not just a few, but all. Please also contact Sen. Reid and tell him you support his decision to oppose the bill.

    -- Michelle Kennedy of Reno is the new Nevada Wildlife Federation Air and Energy Grassroots Coordinator. Contact her at kenquest5@netzero.net.

    Take Action:

    Contact your senators, and let them know how you feel.

    Sen. Harry Reid
    (202) 224-3542
    528 Hart Bldg.
    Washington, D.C., 20510
    www.reid.senate.gov/email_form.cfm
    		Sen. John Ensign
    (202) 224-6244
    364 Russell Bldg.
    Washington, D.C., 20510
    www.ensign.senate.gov/contact_john/contactjohn_email.html

    Back to Nevada Wildlife Federation home page