Dear Editor,
I enjoyed my issue of Coastal Services, and look forward to future editions. Thank you for the effort!
The article "Gambling with the Environment" [in the January/February edition] particularly raised my curiosity. It presents some interesting policy issues. Nowhere in the article is it made clear that the reason coastal resources are taking the brunt of gambling development is because the State of Mississippi does not allow gambling on land (based on theological arguments), where the environmental impacts of such development could be better managed. Federal acquiescence to this state policy is essentially wetlands being "filled" by casinos on sunken platforms tethered to the coast. It is hard for local leadership to feign they did not see problems coming. Early on the industry set its sights on protected wetlands, and there have been years of litigation.
Much of that litigation has focused on the lack of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. A recent effort by Senator Lott apparently has thwarted a programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) by the Corps; the political pressure the article reports is indeed intense and at very high levels.
I disagree that failure to forge partnerships is the basic problem. Indeed rational planning as advocated by NEPA has been politically overturned, because the rationales for the "preferred alternatives" cannot stand the light of day.
This article may have better served your readership if it was a bit more blunt about how we got here.
Roger E. McManus
President, Center for Marine Conservation
Washington, DC
