 The Columbus Dispatch
Thursday, June 8, 2000 The federal legislation that will delay progress on plans to create a national wildlife refuge along the Little Darby Creek is a disappointing development for Ohio, a state with few similar unspoiled natural areas. Fortunately, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has responded quickly, scheduling meetings this month on its plan to purchase and preserve nearly 23,000 acres in Madison and Union counties and to seek to buy development rights for an additional 26,000 acres of farmland near the creek. All purchases would be only from willing sellers, at fair-market prices. The service aims to release the draft environmental-impact statement this summer, fulfilling the demand of an amendment to a bill that passed last month. The refuge would offer a way to reduce or prevent pollution of the Little Darby -- a national and state scenic river 25 miles west of Downtown -- as well as protect endangered species and provide the area with a valuable economic and environmental asset. But opponents, most of whom live in the area and probably are driven by dollar signs as land prices escalate, don't like the plan, even resorting to spreading misinformation, claiming that the federal government will use the power of eminent domain to force sales. Driven by this misguided campaign, more than 100 landowners of about 10,000 acres have signed deed restrictions that would stop their land from being returned to a natural state but would leave it available for virtually any kind of development.
Denise King, a spokeswoman for the Nature Conservancy, a national group that buys land to encourage preservation, makes this valid point: "If you are in favor of farmland preservation, then you should be asking the opponents why they want deed restrictions that won't do anything to prevent this land from being turned into a tire dump, a landfill or a housing development." The truth is this: Property owners who don't want to sell to the federal government simply don't have to sell. At the same time, those who do want to sell ought to be able to do so without being harassed. A key element of the proposal, which would be spelled out in the congressional legislation enabling the refuge plan to go forward, is that the wildlife service would not use eminent domain. The irony of this debate is that those who advocate delay and are working to defeat the refuge are letting opponents shove their own wants and needs down the throats of those who wish to sell their land for creation of a national refuge and, thereby, leave a legacy of beauty and ecological protection. Back to Ohio state page
|
|