Issue 7: Should the Military Be Exempt from Environmental Regulations?

Issue 7

Should the Military Be Exempt from Environmental Regulations?

Authors: Benedict S. Cohen and Jamie Clark

1. (2pts) Definitions. List the important new terms and concepts used by the author. Define terms with which you were not familiar. Circle those that you think need clarification and discussion. Minimum 4.

a. ordnance – any military equipment: from vehicles to ammunition to weapons.

b. bed-down – a military term for settling a new device or person into a situation or setting.

c. encroachment – building on someone else’s property either by intent or accident.

d. critical habitat designation – “(1) specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing, if they contain physical or biological features essential to conservation, and those features may require special management considerations or protection; and (2) specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species if the agency determines that the area itself is essential for conservation.” (NOAA Website)

2. (4pts) Summary. In your own words, summarize the themes and key points developed in this chapter, article, or section of an assigned book. Write as if you were the author telling another educated person what you were trying to say in the assigned piece. In this section, do not give your opinion. Present the arguments and themes of the assigned author.

Benedict Cohen provides the positive viewpoint. His side comes from his testimony before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works on April 2, 2003. He believes that the environmental regulations placed upon the military by the government interfere with their activities. If removed, he claims that they would continue care for the land provided them.

The Department of Defense (DoD) has been entrusted with 25 million acres of land by the U.S. government. The efforts they make to protect the environment are: (1) “investing in pollution prevention technologies to minimize or reduce pollution”, (2) “managing endangered and threatened species and all of our natural resources,” and (3) “cleaning up contamination from past practices.” (p. 111)

However, the ability to train and the restrictions placed upon the military by environmental legislation has limited their ability to maintain the readiness of American military forces. In his testimony, he requests five changes in the provisions:

1. “Authorize use of Integrated Natural Resource Management Plans in appropriate circumstances as a substitute for critical habitat designation”

2. “Reform obsolete and unscientific elements of the Marine Mammal Protection Act, such as the definition of “harassment,” and add a national security exemption to that statute;”

3. “Modestly extend the allowable time for military readiness activities like bed-down of new weapons systems to comply with Clean Air Act”

4. “Limit regulation of munitions on operational ranges under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), if and only if those munitions and their associated constituents remain there, and only while the range remains operational.” (p. 112)

He anticipated the critique that these proposals would be sweeping and that other federal agencies would follow suit. “Accordingly, our proposals are neither sweeping nor exceptive; to the contrary, it is our critics who urge us to rely on wholesale, repeated use of emergency exemptions for routine, ongoing readiness activities that could easily be accommodated by minor clarifications and changes to existing law.” (p. 114)

The negative side of the argument is from a testimony before the same committee on the same date by Jamie Clark, part of the National Wildlife Federation. The proposal to lessen the environmental responsibility of the DoD to conserve wildlife and not pollute with hazardous chemicals is “unjustified and dangerous.” (p. 121)

There are three main reasons she believes these exemptions should not be made:

1. Other agencies with important missions will attempt to copy and capitalize on this opportunity to gain exemptions.

2. Eliminating critical habitat designation on DoD lands would remove an essential tool for protecting and recovering species.

3. The DoD can and has achieved readiness objectives while complying with ESA (Endangered Species Act). In 2001, there were no ‘jeopardy’ rulings by the ESA when consulting with the DoD so they were not hampered by these provisions.

It appears that the DoD has attempted to make the conflicts seem more unsolvable and the need for exemption greater. In an internal memo to the chiefs of the armed forces, the “implicit message is that efforts at the installation level to resolve conflicts between conservation and training objectives should be suspended, and that such conflicts instead should be reported to the Pentagon, where environmental protections will simply be overridden.” (p. 128)

This proposition has been passed in the Senate in 2003; however the House decided not to even consider it. The DoD is seeking exemptions once again, in April 2006; this is the fifth successive year.

3. (3pts) Creative Reaction and Integration. Record some of your own ideas that came to you as you were reading and thinking about the issue or issues the author is discussing. Formulate these in well-written sentences, develop them as best you can, and relate them to the author’s discussion and possibly to other readings and course themes.

It sounds sinister to ask for a definition of harassment when referring to marine animals. Why do they need these extensions and exceptions? The military seems to have no concern for the environment in the least. History of wars and conflicts proves such a thought with “scorched earth” wars. The environment is to be exploited to our advantage, according to the official military stance.

It seems as though the Pentagon was trying to make it appear as though there was a greater conflict than actually existed, in order to get the support needed from Congress to amend the environmental laws. This seems like a dirty trick, but we see it all the time in politics. Make it fresh in the mind and its significance will soar.

4. (2pts) Opinion – Not graded, 2 points awarded if completed.

I believe what the military is trying to pull off is shameful. They would have the entire world changed in order to fight this war and it’s high time we tell them no! They can’t take our rights away in order to “find the few” who are here and wanting to kill us. They can’t lie to us and then require our money for this war they wage. The officials at the Pentagon have painted this war and what we need to do about it in every single way but the truth. It’s frustrating and this article is another example of their deception.