Molly Absolon: How does the environment
fit into your vision for Wyoming's future?
Governor Freudenthal: Well I think it
is related to two things. One is, I think the
physical environment accounts for the reason
that an awful lot of people live here.
Wyoming's environment creates our quality
of life. It may also turn out, in the long
run, to be one of Wyoming's most significant
marketable assets. I believe more and
more people are going to be attracted to
Wyoming as a place to live. But to live
here, they have to figure out how to make
a living or figure out how they can bring
work to Wyoming.
One of the problems that we are
having is figuring out the economic
value of the environment. Outside of
tourism, hunting and those kinds of
things that people talk about generally,
you hear and run into an awful lot of
people who've moved here for lifestyle
and environmental-quality reasons, but
because of the way our tax structure is,
we don't have a way to count them.
They move into a community, you hear
about them or you might run into them,
but it is not like a coal mine. They don't
have to get a business permit to work in
the state if they are doing financial consulting,
or they are manipulating data that
comes in from out of state, so the measurement
of their impact on the state's
economy has proven to be very difficult.
It is apparent that people are moving to
Wyoming not just to retire but also as a
lifestyle choice. So our environment has
both a species and habitat importance,
and it also has an emerging significant
economic value.
Photo by Jeff Vaunga
|
Q: Given our basic tax structure and our
reliance on minerals as a source of revenues
for the state, it seems as if we may have set up
an inherent conflict between extractive
industries and people moving here for the
state's environmental attractions. Do you see
a conflict?
A: We certainly don't capture much value
from these people in return for the services
they receive.
Q: Generally speaking do you believe
Wyoming's environment has improved or
deteriorated in the past ten years?
A: If you look at the numbers on the air
quality side, we are probably not in as
good a shape as we were ten years ago. I
don't know if the stuff originates in
Wyoming or what the cause of it is, but air
quality isn't where it should be. I don't
have any empirical info on water quality
and on the quality of the land, but anecdotal
evidence seems to suggest that in
some places there have been improvements,
particularly in areas where there
have been conservation easements or
habitat programs put into place.
Sportsmen would contend - at least
they seem to contend when you talk to
them - that things are getting worse, but
I have not been able to tell if that is a
function of environmental degradation
or drought.
Q: What do you see as the greatest environmental
challenge facing the state?
A: It seems to me that we have de-emphasized
and marginalized environmental concerns as a
state matter. Right now these concerns tend to
be dictated by the federal government. I think
the largest issue we confront is establishing or
re-establishing, as a matter of state policy and
state conversation, that environmental and quality-
of-life concerns must be given every bit as
much weight as other concerns.
Q: Can you give an example?
A: If you listen to the conversation around
coalbed methane development, or around
almost any economic development proposal for
that matter, we appear to be only interested in
the tax revenues.
Q: "We" meaning the state?
A: Yes, both the state and its citizens.
We talk about tax revenues and jobs. There is
not an equal amount of discussion about what
the environmental or quality-of-life consequences
of a given decision will be. And I
think that starts us with a slightly skewed
view of things when we begin evaluating
options and alternatives.
Q: Who do you rely on to give you advice on
environmental issues?
A: As a matter of course, I don't have a publicly
identifiable list of advisors on anything, I
take advice from everybody. You aren't going to
walk me into that question, but I don't blame
you for trying.
Q: Okay, well, with that in mind, what role
do you see for nonprofit advocacy groups like
WOC, but also like the Wyoming Stock
Growers Association or the Petroleum
Association of Wyoming?
A: I certainly meet and talk to all of them. But
I think they have a broader role. I think they
need to communicate with a much greater
statewide audience and not just with the government.
People pretend that if you talk to the
governor, everything is going to get solved or
that you are going to get an answer. That is not
necessarily so.
This stuff revolves around what the public
decides they want, because the process is one
that requires legislation or funding or voluntary
compliance or at least support for mandatory
compliance. I think the groups need to not
only communicate with elected officials, but
they need to communicate more with the
public in ways that make these issues important
to the public.
Q: How do you think the health of the state's
wildlife is?
A: Not as good as I would like. I'd say, C to C
minus. Again, part of the problem is drought
conditions, part of it is changes in land-use patterns
and part of it is driven I think - I'd have
to defer to the experts here - but I believe part
of it is also driven by the fact that an awful lot
of the pristine areas are getting broken into by
non-open space use, if that's a diplomatic way
to say this.
Q: I read the article you wrote during the
campaign for Wyoming Wildlife and it said that
you had a plan for the management ofWyoming's
wildlife.What is that plan?
A: A lot of it revolves around finding additional
sources of funding for Wyoming Game and Fish.
The things that I suspected and heard while I
was in the campaign was that the financial footing
for Game and Fish and the demands that are
on it are such that the agency's ability to actually
manage wildlife, particularly animals other
than game species, is really compromised.
The thing I'm most distressed about is that I
had hoped we could start looking at some form
of this wildlife trust fund immediately, but it
appears to me that school-facility construction
funding is going to drive that off the table, at
least for the near term. Which means that the
linchpin of my plan for making more resources
available to Game and Fish for planning and for
taking care of species and habitat questions
appears to me to be off the table because of
school construction. School construction is in
the billion to 1.4 billion-dollar range, and that
comes at a time when revenues are f lat. So I
haven't found the fuel for the engine of my
wildlife-management plan.
I think there are still some things we
can do in terms of participating in the federal
land-planning process, but again your
ability to participate in that process is
dependent on the quality of the state's
own perception of where it is going,
which by and large is developed by Game
and Fish.
Q: I'm curious why you support the
dual classification of wolves, particularly
when you talk about looking for other
sources of revenue for the Game and Fish
Department…Couldn't selling licenses for
hunting wolves provide some revenue?
A: I end up supporting dual classification
because I think it ref lects an appropriate
balance. You are going to have places in
the state with absolute restrictions and
places in the state with lesser restrictions
on the take. I think the statutory framework
of dual classification gives us the
chance to put together some balance that
ref lects what are obviously very different
circumstances depending on how far out
the wolf ranges from the park. I think that
without that dual classification you don't
get to a fair balance.
Photo by Jeff Vaunga
|
Q: I'm not sure I understand why that
would be so.
A: Without dual classification, you end
up with only trophy take…I think you
need dual classification to develop a management
plan that allows you to respond…
I mean the fact of the matter is that a wolf
in Sheridan County is different in terms of
its contribution to the maintenance of the
species, which is the federal goal, than a
wolf that is closer to the park area. I think
the feds have a legitimate concern about
greater protection as you get closer to
the park.
Q: How about the idea of generating
revenue from the sale of trophy wolf
hunting licenses?
A: I think that relative to Game and Fish's
needs, revenue from license sales is a drop
in the bucket. I think you are going to
have to look to some non-license sources
to actually have an effect.
Q: Given the rise in disease among
Wyoming's wildlife - chronic wasting
disease, brucellosis, whirling disease etc. -
do you think we need to rethink our
wildlife-management strategies?
A: You know, I don't. I know where you
are going with that argument, but I don't
think that I have reached a conclusion that
somehow the state's wildlife-management
strategies are f lawed and have to be
rethought.
Q: The conservation community was very
excited about your support for protecting
portions of the Bridger-Teton National
Forest from oil and gas leasing…Are there
other parts of the state where you think
similar action is merited?
A: I'll cross that bridge when I get to it.
Q: How do you resolve the conflict between
developing coalbed methane and preserving
agricultural interests in the state?
A: I was discouraged with the legislative
treatment of the split-estate legislation.
On the other hand, I'm encouraged that at
least they are going to try to look at it as
part of an interim study. We really need to
do something to make sure agriculture has
a stronger hand in dealing with the minerals
estate. We pursued this issue in the
context of coal development, but we
haven't done it with coalbed methane.
It is harder to figure out how to do
it with coalbed methane than with coal,
because coalbed methane affects such a
huge physical area, and is a different kind
of development than coal. But I think the
conf lict has to be resolved, because ultimately
individual disputes can't be determined
by the government every time, so
what we need to do is to strengthen the
agriculture party in terms of dealing with
the minerals estate.
Q: So you would support some sort of legislation
strengthening surface-owners' rights?
A: I don't know what you mean by that. I
would support legislation that strengthens
the surface estate relative to the mineral
estate in the context of coalbed methane. I
never know when someone says "surfaceuse
agreement" whether they are talking
about the ones developed by [lawyers
representing surface owners] or the ones
developed by the companies, so I am real
careful about how I say this. The devil is in
the details. But hopefully the legislative
committee is going to look at all these
issues. They certainly committed to doing
that during the session and we will obviously
participate in these discussions.
Q: How do you feel about supporting
legislation mandating the adoption of a state
renewable portfolio standard? Because it
seems that Wyoming is as rich in solar and
wind power as it is in oil and gas.
A: You know, interestingly enough, I had
a meeting with Steve Waddington [energy
policy advisor, on loan from PacifiCorp]
earlier this week. He is really encouraging
me to adopt a renewable portfolio standard.
He tried to walk me through that
kind of stuff. He makes a pretty strong
argument. I don't know where I'm at on
it yet. His argument is the same as yours,
that we ultimately have incredible
renewable resource options here in
Wyoming… He gave me one of those
"Hey, wake up!" speeches," but I don't
know if I'm awake yet. Outdoor Council Frontline Report 7
Q: What's your position on the value of wilderness
in Wyoming?
A: I like wilderness. It has cultural, lifestyle and
environmental value, and as we move forward
over the next decades, it also has an increasing
economic value as something that people are
either going to want to come visit or want to be
around, so yeah, it's a pretty good deal.
Q: Do you have any vision for the administration
or management of state lands?
A: I guess, in short, I hope that in the next
four years we will begin to come up with a
vision. I think Lynne Boomgaarden is going
to be an interesting and effective state
lands commissioner.
Q: You are still in preliminary discussion stages?
A: We are, and part of what we are trying to
figure out is just what we have. Everyone says
the same thing about state lands. They say, we
have to look at management, greater public utilization
and we ought to look at blocking up the
lands through sales and exchanges, but the
mechanics end up seeming to revolve around
individual development proposals as opposed to
developing an overall policy for state lands. We
need to have a policy first, but one of the
underlying issues in terms of developing policy
is that no one has a particularly good handle on
what the lands look like. We are a long way
from knowing for sure what it is we are managing.
I think that is why to date in the state's history
the state's policy has largely been reactive
as opposed to proactive. I know that there is
interest on my part, and on the part of some of
the other [state lands commission] board members,
to try to change that. The question is
whether we even have the resources within the
agency to actually complete a legitimate inventory
so that we can be proactive.
We don't have enough manpower. We can
tell you where the state lands are located, give
you a GPS reading for them, but that doesn't tell
you a lot about the lands, and it doesn't tell me
a lot about them either.
Q: Can you expand on what you meant when
you said in the Wyoming Wildlife article that you
supported the development ofWyoming's natural
resources on Wyoming's terms?
A: From my point of view, this is a two-step
process. The most immediate step is to get back
to where we recognize that Wyoming's terms
include interests beyond just the extraction of
minerals. That means making sure that environmental
consequences are accounted for, both
short and long term; that resources are going to
be properly taxed and those monies used for the
betterment of the state; and that we have something
to say about development.
I do think there are places where people just
don't want anything and they ought to be able
to say that and not leave the decision to the federal
government. But it is an incredibly tricky
process because, depending on who you talk to,
everyone sees each issue differently. Somehow
we have to come up with at least a [decisionmaking]
process that says no interests are marginalized.
Not every interest is going to get
everything they want on every parcel of ground
in the state, but at least they should be heard. At
that stage it becomes fairly specific. Clearly
there are a different set of challenges for
coalbed methane development in the less developed
portions of the Big Horn Mountains than
there are for development in areas surrounding
existing coal mines. We need to say that
Wyoming's terms are going to ref lect those variety
of circumstances.
It's like the [Department of Environmental
Quality's Permitting Task Force] we've created to
look at [National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination
System] permitting. They
have some really difficult
problems that need to be
resolved. Wyoming's citizens
need to be able to
participate in the permitting
process and the permitting
process needs to
account for both the environmental
consequences
as well as the developer's
desire to develop the
resource. Maybe we need
to impose a bond that says if the permit doesn't
function the way we expect it, there is some
ability to be able to come and reclaim it.
Wyoming's terms means weighing all these different
factors before you come up with a decision.
Q: Why is Freudenthal better for Wyoming's
environment than Geringer?
A: I don't know that he is. I'll have to wait
and see.
Lander writer Molly Absolon is a WOC board officer. |
Privacy Policy