ANTI-CONSERVATION GLOSSARY

The jargon of the Anti-Conservation Movement and those who monitor it is not always easily understood. In some instances this is because of the fairly obscure origin of the terminology. For example, the term "Takings" comes from a phrase in the fifth amendment of the Federal Constitution and similar phrases in most state constitutions. Other Anti-Conservation mantras are intentionally vague, even misleading, in order to obscure their real goals.
Therefore, I offer this Glossary to familiarize the reader with some of the words and phrases that comprise Anti-Conservation Speak. The exact language of some of these proposals may vary from state to state. These definitions are intended to present a preview of the subject matter of this report, and to aid the reader's understanding.

AGRICULTURAL ANTI-DEFAMATION

Some states in which farming is a major component of the economy have considered laws which prohibit citizens from making disparaging comments about the state's agricultural practices or products. These laws are agriculture's response to the so-called Alar scare which resulted from consumer and public health groups' warnings about the pesticide Alar, used on apples. Often phrased in terms of the importance of agricultural to the state's economy, these bills are subject to challenges on the grounds that they chill the Constitutional right to free speech by stifling warnings about food additives and silence legitimate scientific debate.

AUDIT PRIVILEGE

Sometimes referred to as "environmental audit" or "self-critical analysis," the idea is to create a new evidentiary privilege. Evidence of violation of environmental laws and regulations discovered in the course of an internal investigation would be secret - disclosure could not be compelled, not even by subpoena. The rationale is that this immunity would create an incentive to investigate one's compliance status, yet some bills would require no efforts at cleanup. And all such proposals begin from the premise that polluters need some special incentive to obey the law.

COUNTY SUPREMACY

This term relies on a tortured interpretation of the 10th Amendment to the Federal Constitution to argue that county government has the final say over what happens to all public land in a county, even land owned by the federal or state government. The means by which Anti-Conservationists attempt to exert this control are sometimes called Catron ` County ordinances after the New Mexico county in which one was first actually enacted.

PUBLIC LANDS

Governments at all levels own land. These holdings range from multi-million acre National Forests to tiny Town and County Parks, and include such diverse holdings as wildlife refuges, recreation trails and beaches. Some Anti-Conservationists view public ownership of land as inherently undesirable - land will never be put to its highest and best use unless it is in the hands of individuals and corporations which respond best to the profit motive. Attempts to stop or slow public land acquisitions such as rails to trails and stewardship programs, and to reduce current governmental holdings are grouped in this category.

RIGHT TO FARM

This term comes from the Wisconsin and other legislation of the same name. Dressed up in references to the importance of farming to the economy and the fabric of society, the Wisconsin bill essentially elevates agriculture above all other land uses. It effectively invites huge corporate farms into the state and encourages them to be bad neighbors. People negatively affected by agricultural operations, presumably including those whose property values are reduced, will find their legal remedies severely limited.

TAKINGS

The term "takings" comes from the final clause of the 5th Amendment to the Federal Constitution which prevents private property from being taken for public purposes without just compensation. As interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court, there can be both physical takings (like property which is needed for a highway or airport) and regulatory takings (limitation on the use of land due to the operation of a law or regulation). To be compensated, a regulatory taking must amount to a nearly total loss of the property's value. Proponents of takings bills want to legislatively sidestep the Constitution and lower this compensation threshold to some arbitrary percentage of what the property's value would be if it was unaffected by the land use regulation. "Moderate" takings proponents would compensate for losses of 50% or more, while the radicals want compensation for any diminution.

WETLANDS

By and large, society collectively has come to recognize the value of protecting wetlands to protect water quality, protect homes from flooding and protect habitat for ducks, wildlife and fish. Yet not everyone is willing to accept the responsibility to protect wetlands on his or her property. Consequently the process by which wetlands are identified, the biological characteristics by which they are defined, and the specific protections afforded are all subjects of Anti-Conservationist activity.