From: | CPEO Moderator <cpeo@cpeo.org> |
Date: | 21 May 2003 18:37:36 -0000 |
Reply: | cpeo-military |
Subject: | [CPEO-MEF] Pataki Letter |
The following letter was sent to Senator John Warner by Governor George E. Pataki. ________________________________________________________________ Dear Senator Warner: I am writing to express the concerns of New York State to Title III, Subtitle B of S. 747, the environmental provisions of the Department of Defense (DOD) Authorization bill for Federal Fiscal Year 2004. As one of the three sites of the most devastating terrorist attacks in our Nation's history, New Yorkers are among the strongest supporters of a strong national defense, and have the utmost gratitude for all of the military personnel who are acting, each day, to ensure that we never again suffer the kind of tragedy that we witnessed on September 11, 2001. New Yorkers also are among the Nation's leading advocates of environmental protection, and on those grounds are concerned about potential problems that could result from the enactment of Subtitle B. New York State has established an excellent working relationship with the Defense facilities within our borders – Fort Drum, Camp Smith, and the United States Military Academy at West Point. These facilities work cooperatively on a day-to-day basis with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation to protect natural resources and to meet the mandates of the State Implementation Plan for the improvement of air quality, while concomitantly exercising their authority to train and prepare the troops and students who are based at these sites. Our support for these military facilities demonstrates my administration's belief in the need for a properly trained military, while striking a balance with environmental protection. The amendments to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) which are proposed in S. 747 appear to circumvent the Military Munitions rule which the United States Environmental Protection Agency promulgated in 1998, and most of which New York subsequently adopted by regulation. We are not aware of any instance in which the Military Munitions rule has impeded DOD activities in the State, therefore, the proposed RCRA amendments are not necessary for effective DOD operations in New York State. In addition, the suggested amendments to the Clean Air Act (CAA) in Subtitle B appear to be based in part on a concern that the general conformity provisions of the CAA impeded emergency repair and reconstruction activities in the wake of the destruction of the World Trade Center. The CAA and its implementing regulations already provided DOD with ample flexibility to carry out its duties during times of war and emergency (see §118 of the CAA, for example); therefore, the proposed amendments are unnecessary. Other important environmental laws, such as the Endangered Species Act, similarly provide waivers in the interests of national defense. Federal Environmental laws already provide wise and sufficient guidance that ensures a strong national defense in times of crisis, while preserving the quality of our environment for future generations. New York's experience with the implementation of environmental laws in the wake of a terrorist attack is unprecedented and, with respect to Subtitle B, instructive. Even in the midst of the World Trade Center crisis, response activities received all the necessary state and federal authorization, which did not impede the response in any way and insured that such activities had minimal impact on the people and environment around the site. Based upon our experience, I do not believe that these amendments are necessary, and urge you to consider striking this language as the DOD Authorization bill moves forward. Thank you for your consideration of these comments, and for your efforts as Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, to ensure the protection of New Yorkers and the Nation through a robust National defense. Very truly yours, George E. Pataki ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | |
Prev by Date: [CPEO-MEF] The Inhofe Amendment: Still Unacceptable Next by Date: [CPEO-MEF] Pombo sets sights on habitat law | |
Prev by Thread: [CPEO-MEF] The Inhofe Amendment: Still Unacceptable Next by Thread: [CPEO-MEF] Pombo sets sights on habitat law |