|Date:||24 Apr 2002 15:05:05 -0000|
|Subject:||Re: [CPEO-MEF] Pentagon Environmental Proposals|
Thank you for your thoughtful response. I believe that the best way to avoid "big changes" is to make the small changes necessary to keep the system working well. The environmental laws, like other laws, are the handiwork of ordinary men and women; they are not gifts from on high. [The same is true, by the way, of the proposed legislative changes proposed by DoD.] Occasionally, the environmental laws need to be adjusted to ensure that they remain both workable and protective. None of the environmental provisions proposed by DoD would affect closed or closing military installations. There would be zero effect on Camp Bonneville. The only exception to my blanket statement is that property made surplus by a base closure could be conveyed for natural resource conservation purposes under section 2021, but even there the provision goes on to provide that the military department "may not dispose of any real property declared surplus as a result of a base closure law under this section in a manner inconsistent with the requirements and preferences established under a base closure law." In other words, the authority to convey under 2021 must take a back seat to the ordinary base closure property conveyance process, which gives a very very substantial role to community involvement and preferences.
Prev by Date: Re: [CPEO-MEF] Pentagon Environmental Proposals|
Next by Date: Re: [CPEO-MEF] Pentagon Environmental Proposals
Prev by Thread: Re: [CPEO-MEF] Pentagon Environmental Proposals|
Next by Thread: Re: [CPEO-MEF] Pentagon Environmental Proposals