Balanced steward for the storm

• Article
• Comments ()
• Click-2-Listen
• Videos

By

President Bush has found a balanced individual for an assignment fraught with extremes. By agreeing to become the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency -- should the Senate see fit to confirm him -- Utah Gov. Mike Leavitt has agreed to become a lightning rod for the administration's most ardent critics on the left and a target for the thunder of anti-regulation forces on the right.

Why would the nation's longest-serving governor agree to leave the clear skies of Utah for the stormy atmosphere of Washington? In his acceptance speech on Monday, Mr. Leavitt harkened to his experience leading the cleanup of the brown haze over the Grand Canyon, which helped crystallize his philosophy of moving toward balance in environmental policy. That doctrine was articulated in his Enlibra Doctrine of environmental stewardship. Adopted by the National Governor's Association, it calls for a federalism of national standards coupled with flexible local solutions, a preference for market-based approaches over expensive mandates and a collaboration between representatives of opposite ends of the environmental debate.

Mr. Leavitt applied that doctrine with some success as governor. He is best known for the Grand Canyon cleanup, but he also made efforts to improve the Utah park system and establish the San Rafael Swell National Monument. The land exchange that allowed the monument to be set up generated some controversy, as did an even larger swap that Mr. Leavitt arranged with then-Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt, which led to the establishment of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. While pleased by that new preserve, environmentalists were less than delighted by his attempt to have a major highway extended through wetlands near the Great Salt Lake.

That history has made conservatives skittish that Mr. Leavitt might be too much of an environmentalist, and liberals fearful that he is too much of a free-marketeer. Fred Smith, the head of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said he thought that Mr. Leavitt "will be a western [Christine Todd] Whitman." Others are even more concerned that he will be too pro-regulation. On the other side, the Sierra Club announced that Mr. Leavitt is "a disappointing choice." The National Environmental Trust proclaimed, "Giving the job to Mike Leavitt is like putting John Ashcroft in charge of the ACLU." In a press release, Sen. Joseph Lieberman castigated Mr. Bush as having "the worst environmental record in history" and questioned if Mr. Leavitt "shares the same disregard for clean air, clean water . . . as the president."

Such rhetoric calls into question how serious Mr. Leavitt's opponents are about the common-sense environmental stewardship he seems to embody. As he said in his speech, "There is no progress polarizing at the extremes . . . but there is great environmental progress when we collaborate in the productive middle." We shall see if there is a productive middle in today's dangerously partisan Senate. A speedy Senate confirmation would provide Mr. Leavitt the opportunity to apply his balanced philosophy as EPA administrator and to follow through on his pledge to leave the post "a better place than I find it."