Surprise, hypocrisy in Washington!

Why am I not surprised?

Daschle seeks environmental exemption

Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle quietly slipped into spending bill language exempting his home state of South Dakota from environmental regulations and lawsuits, in order to allow logging in an effort to prevent forest fires.

...

Mr. Daschle, a Democrat, said the language to expedite logging is essential to reduce the timber growth that can fuel wildfires.

"As we have seen in the last several weeks, the fire danger in the Black Hills is high and we need to get crews on the ground as soon as possible to reduce this risk and protect property and lives," Mr. Daschle said in a statement late Monday night after a House-Senate conference committee agreed on the language.

The language was tucked inside the defense supplemental spending bill, which passed the House last night by a 397-32 vote. The overall measure, which spends $29 billion, will be taken up by the Senate today.

The provision says that "due to extraordinary circumstances," timber activities will be exempt from the National Forest Management Act and National Environmental Policy Act, is not subject to notice, comment or appeal requirements under the Appeals Reform Act, and is not subject to judicial review by any U.S. court.

More than 20 lawsuits, appeals or reviews are blocking timber projects to remove fuel from the Black Hills -- some bottled up in bureaucracy since 1985, say Republican aides.

Ah, the mind boggles at how such people can operate. On the one hand they'll insist they protect the environment, and on the other completely exempt their home state from environmental provisions. It is gratifying to see Daschle recognize the reality that, uh, over-zealous environmentalists have actually endangered the forests they seek to protect. Want proof? Consider this fire current raging in California:

Along with torching thousands of acres, the McNalley fire also reignited a debate about whether environmentalists have blocked proposed thinning projects that would have prevented the fire from spreading and burning so hot.

In the early 1990s, the Sequoia National Forest had plans for several commercial logging projects that would have thinned out small trees and taken much bigger ones.

Environmentalists protested, appealing some projects and blocking others.

It's a case that's becoming classic. It's an "environmental disaster" if a logging company cuts down trees; it's "nature's way" if those same trees burn up.