Customer Reviews

Cities in the Wilderness: A New Vision of Land Use in America

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Finally, an environmental book that offers a clear alternative to misty-eyed, ain't-that-wondrous, nature books and apocalyptic, end-of-the-world environmental wake-up calls. As well laid-out as a textbook, it describes five regions of the country in various stages of environmental decay, the pragmatic steps taken to restore them, the political forces at play, and the actual results of the efforts.

Non-ideological in tone, the book draws the reader into each situation by describing the environmental stakes, but the real payoff is the fascinating details about how major environmental advances are actually put together. One of the surprises for this reviewer is the ambivalent role played by environmental groups, who appear often as antagonists to the final deal; another was the minimal amount of criticism of the current administration, with even that amount given with more sorrow than venom. But perhaps I should have expected that; the author is too busy convincing us of his vision of ecosystem management using Federal land-use policy to be distracted by cheap score-settling. And lest phrases like "Federal land-use policy" make this book sound like a think-tank report, the sweeping descriptions of our American lands and how we use them were gorgeous, and reminiscent of the best writings of Aldo Leopold.

There were a few topics I wish the author could have covered. His book illustrates again and again the importance of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in motivating land-use agreements; more discussion of the growing property rights movement and its attempts to change the ESA would have been topical. And given the ambivalent role played by environment groups, discussion of the best and worst of them, and how they could better achieve their goals, would have been useful. But overall, it was a great and refreshing read; it's about time for an environmental book to offer us, not just a tour of the troubles, but a clear and compelling path to get beyond them.

This is a fantastic book: a look backward at what large-scale land preservation projects have and haven't worked, and a look forward at what we need to do, as a country, to protect and preserve the land. And it isn't a dry tome. Babbitt can actually write: the book is full of compelling, dramatic stories.

There aren't many figures on the environmental scene who command national attention, and Babbitt is one of them. He put his stamp on the Clinton era's efforts to make a difference in land preservation, and his book is a fascinating glimpse into how that all happened -- and how we can continue to craft, with the engaged participation of the feds, new projects that keep the wilderness wild.

There probably isn't anyone better qualified than Babbitt to give the 30,000-foot perspective on how the messy arts of environmental protection and politics combine. He talks about projects in New Jersey, in Florida, in the Midwest, in the Southwest, in the Northwest -- the guy has clearly spent a lot of time thinking about what's in common among the Everglades, the Pine Barrens, the Colorado desert, etc. And what they have in common -- the successful projects, that is -- is a coming-together of many diverse interests that are willing to fight it out as they lurch towards their goal of protecting tens or hundreds of thousands of acres.

A central question of the book is why we don't demand that the federal government be thinking about, and engaged in, land use. As he says, we already have a federal role in land use policy, it's just that we call it the National Parks system, or the Army Corps of Engineers, or federal dollars to rebuild, etc. What we need is a pro-active, forward-looking federal position, rather than a reactive, responsive one.

This is an important book, and a fun one to read.

I have just finished reading Cities in the Wilderness: A New Vision of Land Use in America (Island Press), a collection of five essays book-ended by a prologue and epilogue by former Arizona governor and Secretary of Interior Bruce Babbitt.

I was initially interested in the book because Babbitt will be the featured interview in the next issue of Terrain.org: A Journal of the Built & Natural Environments (www.terrain.org), due out March 5, 2006. Now, I am utterly fascinated, as it weaves together stories---in the manner of case studies but not nearly as dry---set in a historical context of federal, state, and local government "partnerships," seemingly by chance but more often carefully crafted, for environmental preservation. It's call is simple: There must be a federal presence, in the form of legislation, for large-scale preservation efforts: there must be a federal land use policy. Many of the laws already exist, such as the Endangered Species Act, but a more comprehensive, holistic effort is clearly needed. And such movement cannot wait until the current administration is gone, even if the Bush administration has done more to undo all environmental safeguards than any other presidency in our nation's history.

So the topic is intriguing, the stories are powerful, but more so: Babbitt's writing is surprisingly good. Readers at all levels will appreciate and be won over by his subtle eloquence and no-nonsense grace.

I'd go so far as to say that this book should be required reading not only for all lawmakers, but for all environmental advocates, property rights advocates, farmers, ranchers, miners, energy developers, and those interested in such: pretty much everyone with a stake or interest in land and water. That should probably be all of us.

It's a fairly quick read---only 288 pages, which includes plenty of references and other resources.

You will of course want to read the interview in Terrain.org's next issue, but don't wait until then to get this important book!

Here, Bruce Babbitt describes how existing laws can be used to achieve success in the preservation and conservation of wild lands, with little need for huge new bodies of law or impossible political crusades. Babbitt describes with real authority and experience how statutes like the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, and even the Antiquities Act can be used to protect wilderness and recreational areas from uncontrolled sprawl and development. Babbitt also has some important insights into the use of public opinion and finding the true political motivations of local officials who may initially be hostile to environmentalist endeavors, and he also has great ideas about the protection of areas not usually associated with beauty and nature, such as the prairies of the Midwest. However, despite Babbitt's experience at the highest echelons of government, this book doesn't have too many more practical applications than any other well-written book on subjects like sustainable development or wilderness preservation. That's because his stories about some specific successes during the Clinton administration can't really be applied to a generalist "new vision" of land use, though Babbitt has certainly tried to create such a grand insight while writing the book. Also, there are issues with the on-the-ground enforcement of existing laws and overcoming the ignorant anti-Federal hostility that is quickly spreading across America, and Babbitt's take on these particular issues is pretty idealistic. This book describes very well a few success stories, but the enlightening "new vision" for all of America doesn't quite come to fruition. [~doomsdayer520~]

Babbitt begins by telling us that relentless building of highways have spearheaded landscape destruction as land speculators and developers follow. Local governments generally have neither the political will, expertise, nor financial resources to stand up to well-financed developers and their political contributions. Babbitt then goes on to make the case for federal leadership in making land use regulation more effective, and uses examples from his experience involving the Everglades, Southern California, and the Chesapeake Bay to make the point.

The shrinking Everglades problem was caused by farms, canals, dikes, housing developments; its solution began during the early '90s, and moved forward despite Congress' tilting towards reduced spending. The first step occurred when then Interior Secretary Babbitt met with the Army Corps of Engineers, and reached agreement with them to develop a study and proposal on changing the drainage system. There was also a problem with excess fertilizer draining from sugar plantations into the Everglades - causing cattails to displace natural saw grass. They agreed to cut their fertilizer applications in half (were using too much - at the chemical companies behest), and to plant cattails at the draining end of their fields to soak up the rest of the excess. (Babbitt points out that the "ideal" solution would have been to simply end expensive sugar subsidies, allow foreign sugar into the U.S. at much lower price, and allow the sugar plantations to revert to the Everglades.) Another requirement was buying out landowners "suckered" into buying swampland that were clamoring for more levees so they could use their land. The happy outcome was a proposal backed by all sides that was enacted by Congress in 2000. (Side Note: Everglade bog land used for sugar growing has a limited life anyway - it had already dried out, was blowing away, and sunk 12 feet, and had not much further to sink before reaching limestone.)

Babbitt learned in other efforts that it was much simpler to work on a project limited to a single state, and the importance of using sound science in administering the Endangered Species Act.

Babbitt points out that the federal government has always been involved in land-use planning - improving river navigability, surveying, staking out, and subsidizing transcontinental railroad routes, flood control projects, dams, interstate highways. While these efforts were all aimed at land development, he believes that it now time to also boost land conservation as well.

I use "realistic" in scare quotes as an alternative to "idealistic" environmentalism without commenting on the moral value or desirability of either approach.

Babbitt, Clinton's sole Secretary of the Interior, and governor of Arizona before that, is a career politician with a non-extractive industries Westerner's love of nature of his native land.

Those two come together in his thoughts for how the Endangered Species Act and the 1906 Antiquities Act, used in new ways, can be two of the cornerstones of a 21st century environmentalism, primarily in the West, but indeed nationally.

The other cornerstones are state lead-taking in land-use planning, in conjunction with federal support, and a new day in federal-state environmental cooperation in general.

More obvious observations about the anti-environmentalism of people like President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Congressman Richard Pombo aside, Babbitt offers a moderate amount, but not a great deal, of prescriptive specifics on how to do this.

His own success as Interior Secretary was constrained by the change of administrations.

Babbitt pushed Clinton into "new-style" national monuments remaining outside National Park Service control, such as Grand Staircase-Escalante NM in Utah and Giant Sequoia NM in California (not to be confused with Sequoia NP). The idea was that the landholding federal agency of record (the Bureau of Land Management in Utah and the National Forest Service in California) would develop a better conservationist ethic through being committed to national monument management of a monument that retained multi-use characteristics.

While this might be true to some degree of the BLM, it certainly isn't of the Forest Service, and likely won't be unless that agency sees a MAJOR shake-up. (My prescription: Move the Forest Service out of Agriculture and into Interior.)

That, and the book's relative slimness, keep it from a better rating, as it barely hits 4 stars.

I recently met Bruce Babbitt at a conservation conference and was impressed with his knowledge of natural areas and even more so with his attempts to keep these areas 'natural'. His book reflects this knowledge.

I enjoyed reading about bruce Babbit's interpretation of where land use should focus in the years to come. He also laid the groundwork for the development process for several urban areas and national parks. I found it to be a very worthwhile read and I would recommend it to othere.

Cities in the Wilderness
By Bruce Babbitt

Book Review
By Dan Warren

In today's republican political arena with the Bush administrations compelling interest in land expansion the outlook for Environmental causes let along protection would appear to have a dark and gloomy cloud atop any progress. However, Bruce Babbitt the author of Cities in the Wilderness has some new innovative ideas about land use in America. As the U.S. Secretary of the Interior from 1993 to 2001, governor of Arizona from 1978 to 1987 and as Arizona's Attorney General for three years he brings with him experience and a most impressive track record of success in an effort that is largely opposed and unsuccessful; Environmental land preservation efforts and even restoration.
Within the pages of his book Babbitt gives illustrations of success and of failure. He provides detailed rational in each instance drawing on history, public opinion, media, legal requirements, county state and federal involvements, as well as a plethora of other mitigation factors that explain the success or failure. From these Babbitt pieces together an extraordinary working illustration of how we can be better stewards of our land in America.
Furthermore, whether directly or indirectly Babbitt addresses the political climate and gives examples of how to over come the counter movements that oppose his unique vision of land use. Within the confines of his five short easy to read straight forward chapters Babbitt is clear, concise, and well structured in order to piece his ideology together followed by appropriate explanation. His thesis is essentially a parallel, contrary to much of his opposition's belief, as will be detailed later in this review, that our country has historically viewed land development not as a local, county, or even State matter, but as a Federal matter. As such Babbitt will contend that we need to continue to have a Federal interest in land use and development while making a joining effort with more localities but still governed by Federal legislation and direction.
As a native Floridian the everglades are a state treasure. Anyone who has ever driven route one through this magnificent area will feel immersed in nature. For anyone who has not experienced this, all you have to do is watch CBS's hit show CSI: Miami and in most of the episodes as well as in the shows introduction can get a glimpse of what the everglades are from viewing it across their television sets. However, this schema that will be created by this in no way gives justice to the real thing. While either which way will introduce you to the Florida Everglades, it will not reveal its unique history.
In Babbitt's first chapter he uses his experience with the preservation of the Everglades as an introduction to his idea. The devastation caused by hurricane Andrew in the early 1990's also included the destruction of Homestead Air force base in Florida. In the aftermath the government came to the decision to not to rebuild this base, but rather to sell the property commercially for redevelopment. The proposed plan was initially to make the property into a jet port thus generating jobs and commerce. While at first glance this idea makes serves to help the many who became jobless with the closure of the Air force base, it was highly controversial because the proposed site was only miles from the entrance to the everglades.
The balancing of these two conflicting interests: land preservation and development for the sake of commerce is the first conflict that Babbitt faces. It is within these conflicts that are the heart of his book and subsequently in looking at each of these that the most benefit for policy and future decision can be justified on. In this particular issue Babbitt allied with the Army Core of Engineers, a most unexpected partnership. The Army Core who wants to build and Babbitt whose interests are to protect creates a uniquely original idea; the two can actually achieve preservation by essentially constructing preservation.
As pointed out by Babbitt, in earlier years it was the Army Core of Engineers who by direct engineering was in-directly causing devastating affects to the Everglades. As such the remedy was to undo that which was previously done by the efforts of the Army Core of Engineers. While this sounds simple in concept it was very costly and took great effort before it would be later approved for its application. So what exactly would this "undoing" so to speak entail? It would set a new precedent, we would actually spend money not to development but essentially to UN-develop already developed land and for what cause, to preserve the Everglades. This is essentially a step in a new direction in favor of environmental preservation. However, this did not come easily or without coincidence. It was a project that took over eight years, had an eight billion dollar price tag, and according to Babbitt, "the everglades success was an aberration, a case of being in the right place when in came to make a down payment on a presidential election" .
So what is there to be learned from this experience and success in the Everglades? Babbitt goes on to say,
"is there an urgent lesson to be derived from the Florida Everglades, it is that we must invent new federal-state partnerships for managing and restoring our lands, partnerships that have sufficient charisma and public support to withstand destructive efforts by later administrations. Which leads us back to the central question posed: could the Everglades effort mark the beginning of a national commitment to large-scale restoration of degraded ecosystems" ?
The answer to Babbitt's question is two fold. In law when a case is decided the decision is called stare decisis which essentially equates to a precedent that other cases can be decided upon. In the same this narrowly tailored example does in its most simplistic form create a sort of precedent that may act as a catalyst or at least a reference to which other matters related to land conservation can be decided upon.
As Babbitt moves on in his book he provides another success story in California however this is contrasted with a failure Mississippi. In a later chapter Babbitt faces a new conflict of interests. The issue at essence here is a legal one, it involves the interpretation of what constitutes an endangered species and how exactly the Endangered Species Act is used in conjuncture with the rights of landowners. The discussion centers on an endangered bird. What is truly interesting in this example drawn from Babbitt's personal experience is that it utilized a scientific research study in order to investigate the natural habitat of the endangered species so as to have an information base to which decisions can be based off rather then guestimating. Again Babbitt's efforts were successful; however he cited that this is due to good press and public support.
The Endangered Species Act was the legal key to success according to the author. It provided the legal authority to act and to protect in this case. What seems difficult about this is the actually application of the act itself. From the text it does not appear that there is a guideline as to how to implement the acts authority and for the most part serves as a guideline that is to be implemented on the local level and the only Federal participation is to create the act itself but does not provide any governing agency to enforce the act. Rather it relies on its compliance at the local level who it seems in most instances are the ones opposing the act as it in most cases reduces expansion and thus tax revenues for that city, county, or even state.
An interesting remark made by the author is that when it comes to The Endangered Species Act, it is not proactive in protecting but rather reactive in that it does not take affect until after the damage is done. What is gained from this is the ideology that perhaps we need to be proactive with our environment, land use, and species conservation. As with youth we try to teach intervention programs that seek to solve the problem of juvenile delinquency before it starts, in the same we need to solve environmental concerns before they start. Again with this parallel prevention programs cost far less and have much less damage when successful with juveniles as this applies to our environment. We spent 8 billion to undo land development that we had already paid to have developed. Here if we add the research and science base before we make a decision we can avoid these types of environmental concerns before they even exist.
In subsequent chapters Babbitt applies the concepts thus far discussed to the Midwest in regional restoration. He does a great job of finding money in already current budgets to use towards restoration efforts. For instance he mentions a fifteen million dollar account used for a farm program account. Babbitt also explains that all that needs to occur for this to work is to make it into the farmer's best interests to embrace this program and with the requirements of the global economy they will be more then willing.
One molecule of oxygen and two of hydrogen create the world's universal solvent and the substance that sustains life on earth: water. The tragedy is that we are wasting it. Again returning to the argument that we need not leave matters to a localized government, but rather we must make them a federal concern, water with all of its importance needs be a chief central concern. As brought up by Buttell, one avenue in promoting environmentalism is a global view point. Babbitt does a good job emphasizing the importance of making water a Federal matter in the U.S. (as his book's title contains the phrase "Land use in America", I feel that on a matter as internationally important as water it only makes sense to start at the top being Federally regulated and then enforced on each level. Again how we Federally regulate it is just as important but I think we can take this a step further and Internationally regulate water as it is more important then any petroleum based resource, everyone globally needs it to survive and I think more emphasis should be given to this concern, not specifically to this text as again it seeks to speak out about U.S. policy, but rather in other avenues.
While Babbitt's text has a feel good syntax to it, his conclusion brings reality back into play. He finishes up by giving an impressive history and emphasizes the importance of our land. He goes so far as to call it an "American Treasure". Despite this he ends his text with
"Today, however, our public land institutions are under unprecedented attack from both the president and the Congress. This is a season for all Americans to take renewed interest in defending their heritage- the freedom and glory of wide open public spaces."
This call to action that he ends with is a powerful one. However, I am doubtful that with the low voting rates of my generation and the ignorance we as a country have towards our Environment I am weary of our future. Will we use the powerful tools that Babbitt has empowered us with; will we be proactive and preventative rather then responsive after the fact before we have done irreversible harm to our Continent? These questions are serious and meaningful and will affect later generations of Americans.

Bruce Babbitt continues to labor under the self deception that he know best in determining the future of the "common people" his ideas always consume like serfs found to be useless in the feifdom. Read it for the future it suggests of an end to private property and a beginning of the sort of Stalinism and federal tyranny that Babbitt favors. Don't think it was written by any true westerner who "grew up on a ranch." It was written by a political lackey and opportunist who was kicked off his grandfather's spread in Arizona and has always yearned for power--especially power over what he calls the "agricultural apparatchiks."