Posted on 09/02/2003 10:53:11 PM PDT by AnimalLover
Amid the chaos of the budget crisis and the recall election of Gov. Gray Davis, the Legislature is about to set up a powerful new regulatory agency in an effort to protect Indian sacred sites.
While the sacred places of American Indians should be protected, the imperious method chosen by lawmakers and the haste with which this new bureaucracy is being formed would scare Californians if they knew about it. By rushing the sacred sites bill through in the last days of the legislative session, lawmakers are severely restricting public debate on the measure. The law of unintended consequences is sure to broadside the people of California shortly after the bill goes into effect.
Senate Bill 18 would empower the Native American Heritage Commission to regulate development on any land that includes or is close to an Indian sacred site. This would add a new, lengthy and costly regulatory process onto the already complex California Environmental Quality Act. Theres no distance limit between a project and a sacred site, so the Native American Heritage Commission could have power over projects that are quite removed from the sacred site itself.
Whats more, the bill includes very questionable secrecy provisions. It would make it a crime for anybody engaged in identifying a sacred site and gauging its importance to divulge any information about it to the public. The Native American Heritage Commission could conduct its proceedings on sites, including proposed mitigation measures required of developers, in secret. This would violate the publics right to know about the process of government.
Theres so much about this new regulatory process that hasnt even been considered by the governor and lawmakers. For example, who is going to pay for it?
Complying with new sacred sites regulations on top of environmental regulations would add costs for both property owners and public agencies planning development and construction. Not only would building a new house possibly become more expensive, but so would building a new school or road. When revising a general plan for a region or specific plan for a development, cities and counties would have to consult with the commission first. Who will pay those public costs?
And just how far will the new commission expand its reach? Will it insinuate itself far afield from proposed developments, if it could argue that the developments would affect sacred sites?
Instead of this heavy-handed approach, funding could be established, using tribal and public resources, to protect sacred sites identified by the Native American Heritage Commission. These sites could be set aside as preserves. The answer to protecting sacred sites need not be a powerful new state regulatory commission whose costs will be borne by property owners and local governments.
I don't know what they are sniffing in Sacramento but they keep putting out these ridiculous bills.
What can we do?
This is a disaster in the making. Tribal government is the only true socialism we have in this country. Putting socialists in charge of developement and infrastructure will accelerate the balkanization of California.
The legislation also stipulates that the Native American Heritage Commission must determine whether a Traditional Tribal Cultural Site (TTCS) is within 5 miles of a proposed project's boundaries during its lengthy review of a project listing proposal. There are currently 150,000 known prehistoric archeological sites in California. If only 1% of the known sites in our state were upgraded to TTCS status, this would mean that an area equivalent to ¾ of the entire state (75 million acres) would be covered by these TTCS circles.
The potential for the above "supersized" temporal and spatial definitions to lead to government abuse is obvious, and alarming.
CLFA also has concerns about language in the bill which suggests that reviewing public agencies can bring tribal representatives onto private property during project review -- even if expressly against the wishes of the landowner. We believe that the written permission of the landowner should always be required in advance of such an arrangement.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.