From: | Lenny Siegel <lsiegel@cpeo.org> |
Date: | 12 Jul 2002 13:42:10 -0000 |
Reply: | cpeo-military |
Subject: | [CPEO-MEF] Legislation to encroach on Camp Pendleton |
There is a legislation pending to allow further encroachment upon Camp Pendleton, the Marine training base in southern California, and the only people organizing against it are environmental groups! Section 2861 of the House version of the Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (HR 4546), would permit the construction and operation of a toll road through San Onofre Beach State Park, "notwithstanding any provision of State law that would otherwise prevent" the Defense Department from granting an easement through the property. The Defense Department is involved because the Marines lease the land to the California State Park system. As I read the legislation, it would exempt this portion of the project from state environmental and transportation laws. Environmentalists oppose the toll road and Section 2861 because the four-lane roadway would "bisect some of the last open space in southern Orange County, pave over vital habitat critical to the survival of at least eight endangered species, lead to urban sprawl, and increase water pollution." To be funded by bonds dependent upon development impact fees, the actual project would encourage additional suburban growth in the area. On the edge of the active base, the proposed toll road (as well as the growth it triggers) would also impact the Marines. By further reducing habitat on lands not currently used for training and other readiness activities, it would place additional burdens on the Marines to protect the on-base habitat. And Camp Pendleton is already one of the military's leading case studies of how environmental protection is forcing training restrictions. If the Marines hope to conduct night training exercises on nearby portions of the base, they'll have to find another location. State beaches close at Sunset, but Southern California highways normally beam a steady stream of headlights all night long. Indeed, Marine Corps Commandant General J.L. Jones wrote, in February, 2002, "Frankly, my preference is that the proposed toll road not be constructed on or near Camp Pendleton. If constructed on Camp Pendleton, the Marine Corps loses land needed for training to ensure readiness. If constructed near Camp Pendleton, the road facilitates increased urbanization adjacent to the base, which in turn will lead to noise complaints from new residents. This construction is one more encroachment venture that will hinder our ability to prepare for war. It will also result in additional losses of natural areas that support endangered species, thus placing an even greater burden on Camp Pendleton to protect the region's biodiversity." However, the Marines agreed conditionally to the road alignment through San Onofre Beach State Park back in 1988 and 1991, long before "encroachment" had entered our political lexicon. So they won't officially oppose the road proposal. Jones explained, "Nonetheless, the Marine Corps made a commitment in 1988 to support one road alignment on Camp Pendleton, and I will honor that commitment." The situation is further complicated by U.S. EPA's insistence that other alternatives, through Camp Pendleton proper, be included in the environmental review being conducted under the leadership of the Federal Highway Administration. It was that position that triggered Jones' February letter, addressed to EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman. But the debate on Section 2861 isn't about the federal environmental review, it's about state law. The Marines already have the authority to grant an easement through the State Park. This year's language would just exempt the project - at least, that portion on Defense Department land - from state law. I doubt that the Marines ever made a commitment to that. More important, it appears that the Marine Corps succumbed to political arm-twisting many years ago, and it's not in a position to change its mind on the San Onofre alignment. But others can not only oppose Section 2861, they can question the wisdom of any highway construction along the edge of the Marine base. That's what both regional and national environmental groups are doing. (For more information, contact Dan Silver, Coordinator of the Los Angeles-based Endangered Habitats League, <dsilverla@earthlink.net>.) Since the beginning of the encroachment debate, we at CPEO have argued that urban sprawl is the greatest threat to domestic military readiness, and that environmental groups and the military should work together to combat it. Eliminating this unpublicized piece of anti-environmental, anti-readiness legislation would be a great place to start. Lenny -- Lenny Siegel Director, Center for Public Environmental Oversight c/o PSC, 278-A Hope St., Mountain View, CA 94041 Voice: 650/961-8918 or 650/969-1545 Fax: 650/961-8918 <lsiegel@cpeo.org> http://www.cpeo.org ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | |
Prev by Date: [CPEO-MEF] Subject: EPA SETTLES ASBESTOS CASE WITH FORT SHAFTER Next by Date: [CPEO-MEF] Two live mortar shells found in house | |
Prev by Thread: [CPEO-MEF] Subject: EPA SETTLES ASBESTOS CASE WITH FORT SHAFTER Next by Thread: [CPEO-MEF] Two live mortar shells found in house |