'Interior' design: A plan for evil?

The Department of Evil, maybe that's what they should call the Department of Interior these days.

When Gale Norton announced her resignation as Interior Secretary last week, the environmental pundits pounced with all the verbal ferocity that was directed at Norton when she was hired in 2001.

At that time, she was characterized as "James Watt in a skirt," referring to the infamous Reagan-era interior secretary who became the archetypal environmental nemesis. But Norton, with her record as an attorney who represented cattlemen and mining and oil companies, was actually considered by some to be more worrisome than Watt.

"Gale Norton is No James Watt; She's Even Worse," was the headline on a Los Angeles Times column back in '01.

"Good riddance," said the leader of one environmental group immediately after her resignation.

The editorial cartoon service used by the Inter Lake is replete with depictions of Norton looming over timber wastelands studded with oil derricks. One shows her stomping into the horizon with an ax on her shoulder, leaving a stumpy clearcut in her path.

What oil derricks? What clearcuts? Where are they? The Department of Interior doesn't even have a timber program that we're aware of, except maybe a tiny division in the Bureau of Land Management.

But for all the blustering hyperbole about Norton being a heartless land-raping flunky for big business, we really didn't see the sea change toward environmental destruction that has been attributed to Norton.

And already, the same type of rhetoric is revving up over the man appointed to succeed her, Idaho Gov. Dirk Kempthorne.

Yes, Norton supported the Healthy Forests plan, which provided funding for fuel reduction projects around the country, but that was mostly on U.S. Forest Service lands administered by the Department of Agriculture.

There has also been a controversial proposal afoot to rewrite National Park Service regulations in a fashion that would de-emphasize natural resource protection and advance commerce and recreation in national parks, but it doesn't seem to be moving beyond the "draft" stage.

And the Department of Interior has drawn fire from some quarters for pursuing delisting of wolves in the Northern Rockies and grizzly bears in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem under her watch. Some folks also criticize the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for its oversight of other endangered species issues.

But that's about it. Actual pillaging of public lands at the direction of Gale Norton is hard to come by. What's more remarkable is the infamy she's gained for something that hasn't happened.

Norton was a leading advocate for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge - perhaps her greatest sin in the eyes of her critics. But guess what? There is no drilling in the Alaskan refuge, largely because it has become an ecological sacred cow.

While Norton supported energy policies that encourage offshore drilling, we have to wonder what the heck is the difference between her and Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer?

Schweitzer, a Democrat, has boldly pursued a renewed effort to tap into eastern Montana's vast coal reserves, with the idea of converting coal to liquid fuels. Schweitzer's alternative energy pursuit has become such a priority that it was the subject of a recent segment on the "60 Minutes" television newsmagazine. And he wasn't portrayed as an ecological homewrecker either.

Now comes Kempthorne, who like Norton has a history of alliances with big timber and energy interests. Some praise the former U.S. senator and mayor of Boise as a charismatic collaborator who supports states rights and close-to-the-ground management in government. But at the same time a familiar chorus has started from those who think he'll be just another Norton, just another Watt.

President Bush "could not have chosen a more divisive nominee," said the president of the National Environmental Trust.

We'll see about that. Outdoing Norton may not be so easy, even if it wasn't her fault.