GOVERNMENT AGENCIES AND THEIR ROLE Kimberly Dale Abbott, a Junior Political Science major who will be studying International Law and Dutch Studies at the University of Groningen, Netherlands beginning in the fall. Later plans include earning a Law Degree and receiving a Masters Degree in Social Work. This topic reflects the governmental agencies and their involvement in the Strip Mining at the Okefenokee Swamp. The government has taken a very strong stand on the mining of Titanium by DuPont in the Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge since the proposal was first introduced. Even before DuPont had released all the details of its plan, or even before they applied for permits to mine in this area, Mr. Bruce Babbitt, Secretary of the Interior, called a Press Conference. On this day, the 3rd of April, Mr. Babbitt explained to the public and to DuPont that it was a waste of time, money, and energy to continue to investigate the effects of the mining to the wetland. Quite adamantly did he represent the government=s position when he deplored the chemical company to withdraw their offer and find another place to conduct the mining. Mr. Babbitt explained that regardless of the precautions that were taken, it would be impossible to prevent all damage or destruction to the wildlife refuge in this sacred area. During a tour of the area where the mining was to occur, Mr. Babbitt remarked, "It is apparent on the face of it that this refuge and this mining project are not compatible."1 Mr. Jon Samborski, the director of environmental affairs for the mining project, was quick to disagree with Mr. Babbitt. He felt that Mr. Babbitt was out of line because he did not know the extensive planning that was being done to guarantee the preservation of the wildlife in the area. In addition, Mr. Samborski felt that the public should not be negatively influenced by the personal thoughts and opinions of one man, even if he did speak on behalf of the Department of the Interior. DuPont spent millions of dollars insuring the safety of the wildlife and vegetation in the Okefenokee. 1 Ironically, several days following the press conference, DuPont withdrew their offer for the titanium ore mining project in that area. The public was greatly relieved, but what they may not be considering is that DuPont did not say they would NEVER mine in the Okefenokee Wildlife Refuge. Of course, if they had continued with the plans to mine after Mr. Babbitt had alerted the media and general public about the potential risks, DuPont would have lost a great deal of support from their customers and suppliers. By indefinitely postponing their efforts, they could alleviate the pressure while things settle down for them a bit. This was a smart business move, but the issue of mining in the Okefenokee is most likely going to reintroduce itself once again in the future. The government along with the individual people who protest the mining will be the most effective way to put down these attempts at destroying this refuge. Mr. Babbitt sent a statement to the press when DuPont decided to end the measures of mining at the Okefenokee. He stated, AThe titanium dioxide mining procedures now being used at DuPont=s mine at Starke, Florida, include clearing of all vegetation in one square mile sections, and then dredging the cleared area to a depth between 15 and 50 feet. I continue to believe that this kind of mining is fundamentally incompatible with a national wildlife refuge and should not take place along its boundaries.@ 2 The process that must be followed for a company to gain the right to mine in an area is quite detailed. To begin, they conduct their own research about the location to decide if it offers the greatest quantity of the mineral they are seeking. Then, they apply for a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers before they are allowed to do anything major to the land. Meanwhile, the Environmental Protection Agency has the right to veto the decision of the Army Corps, but normally they come to the decision together, so they are in agreement with each other. It is rare for the veto power to be exercised. Although the Department of the Interior, which houses the Fish and Wildlife Service and the refuge system, does not get a "vote" in the matter about whether a permit is granted, the Interior=s scientists normally conduct the "environmental impact study" so they get to contribute to the overall process. Often, too, the Army Corps will inquire the opinion of the Interior=s position before a decision is made concerning the permit. 1 The National Resources Defense Council published an analysis called the "Environment and the 105th Congress: To Be Or Not to Be Green" in January of 1997. This paper discussed the efforts of the 104th Congress to decrease the importance of the environment laws significantly. Attempts were made, some successful, others not, to weaken the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Superfund law, and several public land protections. Fortunately, the environmental issues were pressing enough that the attempts to lesson these issues were defeated. The environment is no longer a small issue. Now it is considered an important part of the Congressional debate. Public interest and awareness has contributed to greatly to this cause. In the 1960's, when Rachel Carson wrote Silent Spring, the Environment movement began. The government must reflect the concerns and interests of its citizens, so therefore more time is being spent on environmental issues than ever before. The Republican party, which used to consist largely of members that were strongly against the environmental movement, is being replaced by a group of outspoken moderate members. These newer members are less likely to wage a war against the Liberals who want to save the natural resources. It is too early to say if the 105th Congress will be as quick to put down the environmental issues facing them as the 104th Congress was, but at this point, it looks as though some of the priorities have changed. Among the top issues on the Congressional environmental committees includes wildlife protection, also known as the Endangered Species Act. This will have an effect on the governments mind-set when and if DuPont decides to go through with their previous attempts of mining in the Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge. 3 During the budget cutbacks in 1996, the Congress played a tremendous role in cutting the budget of environmental programs and agencies. For example, the House of Representatives cut the budget of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by over one third of their previous allotment. They also put many "legislative riders" on the bills that lessons the power of the EPA and the Department of Interior to enforce the already existing "environmental protections." Several of the restrictions will effect the DuPont mining at the Okefenokee, such as: Restrictions on enforcing wetlands protection; A ban on issuance of new water quality standards; and A ban n expansion of public information required on chemical releases. Fortunately, the 1996 budget was finally accepted without these drastic cuts and illogical riders. That is not to say that they will not be introduced again some day. 3 After talking to the local County Commissioner, Mr. Nelson Green, my concern over the government=s level of involvement, or lack of, got a bit stronger. He stated that he was not sure how the local government felt about the strip mining because they really Ahad not discussed it yet.@ He appeared interested to find out more about the project, since he had not heard any details yet.4 Finally, I had the opportunity to talk to Mr. Bob Lord, the Project Officer of the wetlands and the Okefenokee with the Georgia Environmental Protection Agency. He gave me many insights into the concern the officials had, and the process that DuPont would have to go through to get the permits necessary to strip mine. Fortunately, the state has the right to set their standards for the Clean Water Act -number 401- and require industries to apply for Water Quality Certification. Although DuPont has received the required permits to conduct their research, Mr. Lord feels that they will have a very difficult time acquiring the permits necessary to actually strip mine. 5 Mr. Lord also agreed that DuPont has not given up this venture by any means. He stated, AThe mineral resources are too valuable to give up. DuPont is continuing with their testing. The only difference is now they will do all their testing before applying for the permits with the Corps.@ The advantage for them waiting is that the state of Georgia is currently putting together a ACoastal Zone Management Project,@ and they will have some say about whether or not a permit is granted. DuPont would have to abide by the ACoastal Consistency Plan@ as provided by this team of individuals. In the end, the EPA does have the right to veto the Corps decision, but this is rarely exercised. At least now we know that the government will not sit by and watch the environment be destroyed.5 The Government agencies tend to stand behind increased revenue rather than environmental protection. Fortunately, we have the Department of Interior and Environmental Protection Agency looking out for the common problems underlining the future of our world, such as clean air and water. If we do not preserve these areas now, they will suffer for infinity. The government needs to concentrate less on the financial side of things, and look more at the future of our nation. If appropriate measures are not taken, there will be no need for government. References 1. Cushman, John H. "Official Attacks Plan for Mining Project." New York Times. 4 April 1997: A9. 2. Department of the Interior, AStatement of Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt on DuPont Press Conference on Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge.@ 11 April, 1997 3. Buccino, Sharon. "Environment and the 105th Congress: To Be Or Not to Be Green." National Resources Defense Council, Inc. 1996. Available from www.nrdc.org/nrdcpro/analys/sbgw0197.html 4. Green, Nelson. County Commissioner, Ware County, Waycross, Georgia. Phone Interview, June 4, 1997 5. Lord, Bob. Project Officer at Okefenokee, Georgia Environmental Protection Wetland Division. Phone Interview, June 5, 1997.