Paper warns against leaping to conclusions on ‘takings’
By John H. Adams, The Layman Online, January 22, 2004
LOUISVILLE, Ky. – A writing team for the Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy says some of the denomination’s statements about environmental policy – forged mainly by environmental activists – are simplistic responses to complex issues.
Sometimes, the writing team added, it’s best to remain silent and let the experts sort it all out.
The full committee began reviewing the writing team’s 39-page report on “Limited Water Resources and Takings” on Wednesday. Later this week, the committee will make its recommendation to the 216th General Assembly, which will meet in Richmond, Va., in June.
Elder Jananne Sharpless of Sacramento presented the paper and told the committee that “this is a highly technical, complex issue.”
The paper cautions the denomination against maintaining a one-size-fits-all environmental policy that would oppose government’s use of its powers of eminent domain to acquire land and/or property for public purposes.
The paper suggests a number of policy changes.
The 214th General Assembly, responding to resolution from a commissioner in the Presbytery of Baltimore, called on ACSWP to conduct a study of a reservoir project that was begun after a drought in the Klamath Basin.
“This is a legal issue,” Sharpless said. “It comes out of the 5th Amendment, where government is not able to take property without just compensation.”
The Klamath Basin drought caused a critical water shortage. “As of result of that drought, the Bureau of Reclamation and the Bureau of Interior made some decisions about reduced water rights,” Sharpless said.
She said the issue was complicated by a number of factors – the protection of fish species, the loss of water rights by farmers, treaties with Native Americans that raise the question of water rights and just compensation and public need.
The writing committee did recommend that the General Assembly adopt a number of priorities for expressing its concern about protecting the environment. But, Sharpless warned that the PCUSA should avoid making a definitive statement because the situations are complex and legally challenging, exceeding the PCUSA’s capability.
The paper calls on the General Assembly to establish four priorities:
- a. In general, where water resources are limited, the basic needs of declining species should take priority over out-of-stream and other instream users.
- b. In general, also, the reserved rights of Native Americans to instream use of water established by courts and based on treaties that date from the 19th century should take priority over out-of-stream and other instream users.
- c. Giving priority to these two categories of instream users does not mean that the PCUSA will always side with these instream users. Rather, these are priorities that will presumably hold in most situations of conflict. Each situation will have to be judged on its own merits.
- d. The PCUSA does not at this time take any position on the circumstances under which a holder of water rights should receive compensation from the government where the application of these priorities results in restriction of the holder’s water rights.
Sharpless defended the paper for its “God-centered theology, not eco-centered or human-centered,” and said she knew “of no opposition to this paper now.”