Commentary: The Oil and Gas candidate for governor is using his last few months in Congress to tie our hands as far as evaluating what his masters do.
They drill. Often on public lands. Sometimes with potential damage to our environment. But they produce energy and make money. Government should be fair and efficient in deciding on permits for specific activities – balancing drillers' commercial needs and the public interest.
Pearce has introduced two bills that would prevent the government from even doing that, giving drillers a free pass in many situations from environmental and historic preservation laws.
Existing law calls for environmental review of operations under several laws. The law sensibly excluded some categories of action that wouldn't endanger the environment. Pearce wants to add to those “categorical exclusions” stuff like building a new pipeline or road, putting in a whole new well pad, and other activities that potentially endanger species, scarce water supplies, or historical relics – or could pose other environmental dangers.
The law would become meaningless. In many situations, there'd be no review under the Environmental Protection Act, the Historic Preservation Act, or the Endangered Species Act. Ironic to think that last was signed by a Republican President, Richard Nixon. That environmental protection used to be a shared value.
Pearce would also give drillers a free pass where mineral rights are less than 50% federally-owned. If I'm drilling a 400-acre area, and own 51% of the mineral rights, the feds get no chance to determine whether my plans endanger public lands or public water in that area. If I want the big bucks and don't care if I'm polluting water or poisoning wildlife, the feds have to stand by and watch whatever I do on the federal portion of the area. If the state approves, I'm home free – and New Mexico has no state EPA. Plus Pearce hopes to soon be running our state.
Yeah, there's a provision allowing the Secretary of the Interior to inspect to make sure I'm not violating federal law; but under Pearce's pal Trump, hen-guarding agencies are staffed with wolves and foxes.
Meanwhile, the Administration has cut BLM comment periods to meaninglessness. Republican Congressfolk would make us pay to file objections and let states manage federal lands.
Pearce knows that without the permitting process, federal agencies may lack adequate information to assess a site meaningfully; and that too often the laws only get enforced through lawsuits by environmentalists. He knows that these two bills, if made law, could endanger public lands and our scarce water, and possibly wildlife species.
He needs to maximize his pals' profits. They contribute generously to keeping him in public office.
Presumably we're not smart enough to see how the bills and his candidacy for Governor dovetail: the bills would eliminate federal oversight and leave permitting to states, which currently lack jurisdiction over public lands. If Pearce heads the state government, he can make sure OUR state doesn't bother his pals much about endangering neighbor's wells or our environment.
Most of us prefer some public oversight.
The Republican-controlled Congress and this Republican President won't reject Pearce's bills, but Pearce has provided us another reason to reject Pearce.
And one more reason to elect Xochitl Torres-Small to Congress.
The column probably takes it easier on Mr. Pearce than might be justified. Further study makes it clear this is part of a pattern not merely to make oil-and-gas producers more money but at the cost of ignoring values that once seemed deeply held by most U.S. citizens, of whatever party, such as environmental protection, protecting our resources, historic preservation, and trying to minimize the disappearance of various species. The shortening of comment periods when the BLM considers these issues is one part of the operation; and Pearce's two bills are just the tip of the iceberg. See Five Crazy Ways the House Is Pushing Extreme Drilling on Public Lands/, which describes Pearce's bills this way:
2. Rigging the system to benefit polluters
Rep. Steve Pearce from New Mexico introduced HR 6106 and HR 6107, bills that would limit the ability of federal regulators to review environmental, safety or public health impacts of projects. HR 6106 would stop Bureau of Land Management employees from taking a closer look at several types of oil and gas projects—including roads and pipelines—regardless of the impact they may have.
HR 6107 would similarly bar federal regulators from reviewing certain oil and gas projects regardless of impact. The bill proposes to exempt any project that taps less than 50 percent of the federal mineral resources available, so long as the land surface is owned by another party.
The other five parts of the plan are:
1. Making citizens pay to protest drilling
Rep. Liz Cheney introduced HR 6087, a bill that would require citizens and groups like The Wilderness Society to pay a fee to file comments opposing reckless oil and gas leasing. Oil and gas companies, however, would not have to pay a fee for expressing interest in these parcels.
Protesting is an important way for citizens to weigh in on projects that could jeopardize endangered species, water and air quality, or present other threats to the public’s wellbeing. Under Cheney’s bill, protesters would pay per page filed with the government. Given the technical nature of a written protest, it could cost thousands of dollars to submit a protest. Under this bill, last year The Wilderness Society would have spent $15,000 in filings.
3. Handing out drilling permits as fast as possible
Rep. John Curtis proposed HR 6088, a bill creating a new program for drilling permits on many public lands. It would make it so that after a permit has been filed, a company does not need a site inspection or environmental review to drill. All they have to do is wait 45 days. The only exception is if the Secretary of the Interior personally objects. This idea to rubber-stamp drilling permits would eliminate nearly all scrutiny of public health, safety or environmental impacts of a drill site.
4. Tying our children’s education funding to oil drilling
Rep. Scott Tipton’s HR 5859 bill would require that we expand onshore energy production to provide funds for education. It would do so by encouraging expansion of drilling on our public lands and incentivizing drilling. The bill would also potentially ignore dangerous consequences on public health, wildlife habitat, and air and water quality. It creates a false choice between selling out children’s wellbeing and funding their education.
5. Handing drilling on public lands over to the states and penalizing states that oppose drilling
Possibly the worst idea yet is the “Enhancing State Management of Federal Lands and Waters” bill. This proposal would allow states to apply to manage an unlimited number of acres of federal lands that were within their borders. It would also exempt oil and gas projects from federal environmental laws and put states in charge of all permitting and project regulation. States would then be forced to continue to drill these lands at increasing intervals, as they would be rewarded for drilling more and penalized or have management stripped from them for drilling less. The state of Utah could push drilling in the 2 million acres of land illegally eliminated from Bears Ears and Grand Staircase National Monuments.
This proposal would also penalize states that oppose drilling off their coasts. States that object to too many leases off their coasts could be charged a penalty that could reach billions or even trillions of dollars over the course of ten years. States that go along with the program would be rewarded by larger shares of royalty payments for resources that belong to all of us.
[Pearce justifies his bills by saying the state loses about $713 million in state revenue annually due to slow permitting --he said the states of Texas and New Mexico typically issue permitswithin 14 days of a request, but the federal BLM has an average issuance time of 250 days.
Well, one thing that tells me is that we can't trust Texas or New Mexico to evaluate whether the money-making plans of the drillers outweigh historic preservation concerns, threaten species, or have other potentially devastating consequences. Can't even publicize the permit and elicit public or neighbors' comments in two weeks. What he's saying is, the states' permitting processes don't consider some of these issues or do a godawfully superficial job. So we CAN'T afford to do as he wants to do.
If his facts are correct, the BLM process is also probably too long. If I were in Pearce's positions, I'd push for a fair investigation of the facts. I'd also stop trying to choke the funding of public agencies as if wringing out a swimming towel. Maybe part of the problem is inadequate funding. Maybe part is unnecessary bureaucracy. But part of the difference is that in close situations it takes time -- and hearing competent analysis and advocacy from all sides -- to make a decision. And, sorry Steve, the competing values threatened here matter to most of us.]