A sensible balance

0 Comments | Gazette, The (Colorado Springs), Sep 19, 2006

There was only one plan for drilling on Colorado's Roan Plateau that would have met the approval of some people -- no drilling at all. But because the Bureau of Land Management manages its vast holdings for multiple uses, which include helping meet the oil and gas needs of an energy-hungry society, and because the nation is facing a natural gas crunch for the foreseeable future, the no- drilling option simply isn't a luxury we can afford.

We think BLM's drilling plan, released Sept. 7 after months of heated debate, strikes a sensible balance between the needs of nature and the needs of society, assuming the 440-page blueprint is implemented with appropriate care. The estimated 4 trillion cubic feet of natural gas under the plateau is enough to heat 4 million homes for 20 years.

The number of wells has been pared back, in a concession to the anti-drilling crowd. And the plan will be phased in over 20 years to ensure that no more than 1 percent (or 350 acres) of the plateau's top is disturbed at one time. Wells would be clustered on 193 pads, according to this plan, down from the 420 pads under a previous plan. The total area impacted would be 35,191 acres, down from the 42,674 acres in an earlier plan. Well pads would be spaced a half- mile apart, allowing one pad per 160 acres. Reclamation work would have to be done in one area before drilling could begin in another.

To some folks, of course, any drilling on or near the plateau poses an intolerable threat to the area's flora and fauna. But we don't see why the two can't peacefully coexist, given the somewhat scaled-back scope of BLM's plan and the regulatory safeguards in place whenever federal land is involved. The plan has won the endorsement of Russ George, executive director of Colorado's Department of Natural Resources, as well as the state director for the BLM, Sally Wisely, who said it "offers strong protection for fish and wildlife habitat, scenic views and ecologically sensitive areas."

Colorado's senators are divided on the matter.

Sen. Ken Salazar, a Democrat, said in a statement that he didn't believe this "special place" should be open to drilling "at this time." It should be put off to some unspecified later date, said Salazar, when "new drilling techniques may allow us... to tap into these resources from the sides or base of the Plateau. There is no need to rush to lease these precious lands for immediate development," he said.

But Republican Sen. Wayne Allard expressed support for the plan, pointing out that these lands were specifically set aside for gas and oil drilling by Congress in 1997, so it isn't as if we are rushing into anything. "That legislation specified that the resources remain available for development," Allard noted. "Congress never intended to place the resources off limits."

As energy policy realists, we disagree with Salazar's waitand- see approach. If Salazar can't recognize the need for more drilling now, when natural gas prices are high and many experts are predicting tight supplies for the foreseeable future, how dire would circumstances have to be in order to change his mind?

We appreciate the sensible balance BLM has attempted to strike with this plan. If we can tap these resources in the near future, and do so in an environmentally sensitive way, there's no better time to proceed than now.

Congress still fencing over border control

Congress evidently can't bridge political divisions enough to adopt comprehensive immigration reform this year, so House Republicans are moving ahead with efforts to seal a porous border and slow the tide of illegal crossings with a fence. If Congress opts to build such a barrier on our southern border, a guest worker program should also be part of the deal.

The centerpiece of the latest proposal before the House is 700 miles of high-tech fences that would include Arizona's entire border with Mexico, at an estimated cost of $2.2 billion. Lacking are any plans to address the future of more than 11 million illegal immigrants already in the country, or the needs of American businesses that rely on this labor pool.

A border fence is championed by those who view uncontrolled border crossings as a serious threat to national security. They point to Israel's security barrier, which has stemmed the number of terror attacks there, as a model to emulate. And the idea seems to be gaining momentum, as some advocates for more comprehensive immigration reform realize their proposals will go nowhere unless the public receives clear assurance that border security will improve.

Sen. John McCain, a leading voice for reform, said for the first time last week he is willing to consider the House's fence proposal. But he and other leaders shouldn't accept a massive investment in border fencing without approval of a guest worker program and a reasonable and humane plan for dealing with the millions of illegal immigrants already here.

We have a limited opportunity to change immigration policy in a manner that works best for the entire country, not just for immigration hard-liners. Despite what House leaders say, passage of only a border security package would create an illusion that Congress has acted on reform and remove most of the pressure to take other steps critics find unpalatable.