News Coverage
Military's success at environmentalism may hinder new plans
Published April 20, 2003
A vast array of environmental regulations affects operations on the 335-square-mile post that is Fort Hood - and the Pentagon would like to scale some of those laws back.
Military officials say they obey the many laws imposed as means of protecting natural resources and try to be good stewards of the earth. However, the military would like to see some restrictions eased in order to ensure proper training for troops in what is now an ongoing war on terrorism.
Such exemptions are not relished by environmental organizations. Those groups point out that the military has been successful both in fighting wars and protecting nature.
Army Col. William H. Parry III is garrison commander of Fort Hood, a position he equates to a city manager in civilian life. Parry says there are scores of environmental laws and regulations the post has had to abide by.
"There's a good bit of restriction and some of it is our own good-neighbor policy and some is a function of legislation," he said.
Even though the thunder of cannon fire at Fort Hood can be heard on certain days from places 40 miles away such as Hewitt, the post self-imposes restrictions on artillery and rocket fire in areas around Gatesville to help control noise.
Parry says the Army embraces other common-sense controls on activities that are not necessarily statutory such as prohibiting smoke generation in places such as near busy Highway 190 and around Killeen, a city of 87,000.
Some of the biggest effects from environmental regulation stem from the federal Endangered Species Act.
Parry says a bald eagle winter nesting area of some 5,000 acres near Belton Lake on the post means helicopters must fly there above 500 feet between the months of October and April. However, such measures are as much for the safety of aviators as they are for the eagles.
But it is the care and preservation of two endangered songbirds on the post that generate many of the controls under federal regulations.
The black-capped vireo and golden-cheeked warbler nest on areas of the post. The major threat to these birds is not as much tanks and artillery as cowbirds. Female cowbirds act as parasites as they lay their eggs in nests belonging to the endangered songbirds. Parry said the cowbirds either crowd out the vireo and warbler young or can actually push out the songbirds' eggs.
Army personnel have teamed up with federal wildlife officials, conservation groups and landowners whose property adjoin Fort Hood to trap and relocate the cowbirds. Parry said such efforts - along with about two dozen state, federal and private environmental awards given to the post - show Fort Hood is committed to taking care of its natural resources.
"I think we shoulder our responsibility for being stewards of the environment seriously," Parry said.
The garrison commander also says the Army has any number of so-called "work arounds" - literally working around restrictions - to accomplish the mission of successfully training two heavy divisions and other troops for battle.
A look at the live firing areas on Fort Hood in relation to the endangered songbird habitat is a good example of how the Army works around environmental restrictions.
A so-called "impact area" in which munitions ranging from tanks to bombs are fired is located inside the center of the massive military post.
Fort Hood is primarily a tank-training installation and the best areas for such tracked vehicles are to the west of the impact area where there is less steep terrain on which to operate than on the eastern side. The eastern side of the post is also considered "core habitat" for the endangered songbirds. Those birds nesting on the good tank maneuvering areas to the west are thus transferred to the other side of the post.
While some environmental challenges can be sidestepped, others cannot. These include a requirement that Army units have permits to dig foxholes in most places so as not to disturb environmentally or culturally sensitive areas in addition to normal water and air pollution regulations.
Now, against such a backdrop both at Fort Hood and nationwide, comes the Department of Defense's proposed Readiness and Range Preservation Initiative.
Pentagon officials recently revisited the halls of Congress in an effort to relax environmental constraints from regulation and lawsuits on the military. Similar measures were rejected last year by lawmakers. Such legal exemptions are being backed both by Bush administration boosters and its officials.
"I don't believe this is a zero-sum game," said freshman U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, in comments earlier this month before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. "I believe that we can have a military force that is properly trained and at the same time respect the environment in which we all live."
Fort Hood's Parry said the initiative would help post officials look at the big picture of all the Army must do environmentally.
"It would allow us to look at legislation collectively and ensure that the legislation is not working at cross-purposes with each other," he said.
Controversy was generated by the testimony of EPA Administrator Christie Whitman to that committee in February when she said that "I don't believe that there is a training mission anywhere in the country that is being held up or not taking place because (of) an environmental protection regulation."
However, Whitman's press secretary told the Tribune-Herald this week that Whitman has consistently expressed support of the Pentagon's initiative since making those remarks.
"We do not believe military readiness needs to be sacrificed for environmental protection," EPA spokeswoman Lisa Harrison said.
The Pentagon is perhaps a victim of its own success when defending the need for passes on environmental laws. One need only look at its combat record in Afghanistan and most recently Iraq as well as its good environmental record in certain locales.
"Our concern about these Defense Department exemptions is, primarily, they're not really needed," said Ed Lytwak , a spokesman for the Endangered Species Coalition, which represents nearly 400 conservation, environmental, sportsman and religious organizations. "I think good progress has been a result where an effort was made by the military to work with these laws. That's why it's troubling to see Department of Defense higher-level folks seeking these exemptions."
Besides concerns over the proposal affecting active military bases, there are worries the initiative might hinder the cleanup of abandoned or closed installations such as the former Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant in McGregor.
The Navy has so far handed almost two-thirds of the nearly 10,000 acres of that former plant to the city of McGregor to be used for an industrial park. Before doing so, though, the Navy has cleaned up substances ranging from DDT to explosives.
Remaining as a concern in returning the additional acreage over to McGregor is the presence of the chemical substance perchlorate in groundwater and surface water. Perchlorate, which was used at the plant for manufacturing solid rocket motors, can affect thyroid function. While small amounts of perchlorate have been detected over the past few years in the Leon and Bosque rivers, the two watersheds shared by plant property, none of the chemical has ended up in either Lake Waco or Belton Lake drinking water intakes.
Organizations such as the Environmental Working Group fear the government will use the exemptions - if granted by Congress - to shirk its responsibility for cleaning up perchlorate.
"Under cover of concern for national security, the Bush administration is dragging its feet on protecting millions of Americans from a very serious threat to their drinking water," said Bill Walker, West Coast vice president of the environmental group.
But the Navy says regardless of what direction the law takes, the cleanup of at least the McGregor facility will proceed.
"We're committed to cleaning up down there," said Jim Beltz, a spokesman in the Charleston, S.C., Navy office that oversees cleanup in McGregor. "There's no change."
David Bary , a spokesman for the EPA's regional office in Dallas, also said any easing of rules would not change the work under way in cleaning up closed military bases in the region which includes Texas.