The Arrogance of (Sea) Power
Submitted by James Protzman on Mon, 01/08/2007 - 9:36pm
How Elizabeth Dole may have sold out North Carolina farmers in a back-room deal with John Warner.
How the US Navy "reverse engineered" its Environmental Impact Statement to justify its preferred location for the OLF.
How the US Navy threatened a family farmer by saying "we are going to own your land old man."
How the Navy may have illegally trapped red wolves living on the proposed OLF site in violation of the Federal Endangered Species Act
How the North Carolina Farm Bureau abandoned family farmers for what appears to be nothing but political expediency
How the Bush administration threatened a senior US Fish And Wildlife Service officer for obeying the law when he turned over FWS records in response to a Freedom of Information Act
How two brave women organized 400 family farmers to fight this insanity
I just returned from two days with good people from Washington and Beaufort Counties. These are salt-of-the-earth farmers and environmentalists who are fighting back while the US Navy runs roughshod over one of the world's most precious natural resources. They are the people of NO OLF, and the story they have to tell will just about make you sick. And then it will make you mad.
Over the next few days, I'll be reporting some of what I know of the saga. I'll also be asking you to contact your representatives in Congress with a very specific request - and to do it urgently:
Eliminate all appropriations for any Department of Defense activities related to Site C. No funds for continuing the Navy's environmental impact assessment process. No money for land condemnation or acquisition. No money for nothing. Stop this sucker in its tracks. Now.
You'll understand why and how I've reached these conclusions when you read about:
The Good Guys won an permanent injunction against the Navy that has stopped them from moving forward with their initial plans. A new Environmental Impact Statement is expected next month, however, in which the Navy will almost certainly misrepresent reality again.
While I have much confidence in the good attorneys at the Southern Environmental Law Center to win round 2, it would be better all around for this to be handled swiftly through Congressional action. Congressman David Price (4th District) and Congressman G.K. Butterfield (1st District) have been strong opponents of the Navy's misguided plans. Every member of Congress from North Carolina should join them. Every member of Congress from North Carolina should be on the side of the environment and the family farmers. And they should act now to put a halt to any further consideration of Site C. The Navy has already spent $6 million acquiring land using their heavy-handed techniques. Enough is enough.
Trackback URL for this post:
http://www.bluenc.com/trackback/4829
- James Protzman's blog
- Login or register to post comments
I learned a lot about this
after the convention. I was amazed at the lying and maneuvering the US Navy did to secure land. I have a vague memory of a deal with Virginia, but I don't remember exactly what I read. I'll find my notes. It's a fascinating story. Glad you get to tell it first-hand.
Robin Hayes lied. Nobody died, but thousands of folks lost their jobs.
This hasn't made any sense to me
Why is the navy so hot for this? I know, I know....military intelligence = oxymoron. That aside, this just doesn't make sense.
Training to land on Carriers, why can't that be done at Cherry Point or Norfolk? This already poor county would loose whatever taxable revenue it has and the danger to the planes....?
I wondered why I hadn't heard from Biddy on this, she was soooo against it. What did she get in return? How can we use this against her?
No matter that patriotism is too often the refuge of scoundrels. Dissent, rebellion, and all-around hell-raising remain the true duty of patriots.
Great questions
but I'm too toasted to answer them all tonight. The bottom line, I think, is US Navy arrogance and the desire for "convenience" by the Big Cheeses.
The danger to the planes is huge. The effect of jet noise and flight patterns on a federally protected refuge for 80,000+ snow geese and Arctic swans is catastrophic. The Navy doesn't like to back down because the Navy doesn't like to back down. There is no rationale explanation for any of this. And some of what the Navy is doing is downright criminal.
I Never Could Figure -
I never could figure out why the Navy wanted *that* particular piece of land. A migratory waterfowl route + aviation traffic = birdstikes.
Most pilots try to avoid birdstrikes - what is the attraction to that area for the Navy?
I'll be very interested in your comments on the Farm Bureau
and how they're tied into this. In my opinion Larry Wooten, President of the Bureau, is nothing less than a paid lobbyist for big business. I've written twice to him with no response.
As far as the blue box outlined above
goes, for the 2007 military appropriations bill in Jan 2006, the OMB stated that no incremental monies is to be authorized for any building project unless for national security or if supported by a BRAC. (paraphrased, sorry) Washington County had a line item for increment 4 in the house appropriations bill. This OLF cannot be a national security issue because the bulldozers would be flatening things now. And 1993 and 1995 BRAC both had provisions to move planes to Oceana (1993 closed Cecil Field). Niether of these BRAC required a second OLF. BRAC is required to look 6 years out and to determine if the receiving organization can support the decision in question. So we have two BRAC looking at Oceana/Fentress to determine if those facilities could perform the missions in question and the jets where moved. This means that two BRAC have stated that Oceana/Fentress could do the job until 2001.
Oct 2000, Adm Natter starts this EIS process. The Navy started right there to show contempt for the people of North Carolina.
This EIS has Oceana LOSING 91 planes from 2000 to 2010.
Then we have 2005 BRAC. This BRAC stated that the 1993 and 1995 BRAC moved the planes to Oceana to take advantage of excess capacity at Oceana. If Oceana had excess capacity at the close of 2001, then why was Adm Natter starting an EIS to add a second OLF to support Oceana?
In 2010, with 91 planes now missing, sure seems like the excess capacity utilized in 2000 would really be excess now. So why do we need this thing? its not for operational flexibility, cant be, their is to much capacity already. Noise mitigation? You lost 91 planes. Thats a great reduction in noise over what it would sound like if the same number of planes where still there performing the same missions but with a noiser aircraft. So Hampton Roads has received plenty of noise mitigation. Those where the two primary reasons stated in letter from Adm. Natter starting this whole thing.