COMMENT ⊗   VALID 00002 PAGES
C REC  PAGE   DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00002 00002	To the Editor:
C00006 ENDMK
C⊗;
To the Editor:

	The environmental movement in general and the Sierra Club
in particular have become quite powerful.  Not as powerful as they
would like but rather powerful.  It is time for an increased level
of responsibility.

	When the Sierra Club decides to advocate a policy, it
should make up and publish an impact statement, including all
impacts, positive and negative.  This includes the case when
the Sierra Club files a lawsuit.

	The adequacy of the impact statement, i.e. its inclusion
of all foreseeable impacts, should be evaluated and be subject
to challenge.  Challenges should be heard by an {\it ombudsman}
appointed by the Club for that purpose.

	I'll give one example.  The Sierra Club opposed
converting Highway 101 South of San Jose into a freeway.  This
opposition delayed the conversion by perhaps ten years.  During
this period many people died on what was called ``Blood Alley'',
who would not have died had the conversion been done more
promptly.  How many would die could have been estimated in
advance, because good statistics exist on the rates of fatal
injury on freeways that could have been compared with the actual
fatality rate on 101.  I suppose it to have been about 50 over
the ten year period.

	My own opinion is that converting 101 to a freeway should
have been done promptly.  However, the arguments against it
surely seemed stronger to the Sierra Club.  Doubtless, those who
organized the opposition gave the effect on accidents some
thought, but probably they minimized these ill effects, as people
usually do.

	There are two arguments against Sierra Club impact statements.

	1. The Sierra Club has no administrative power.  Impact
statements are for those who do.  The Sierra Club just advocates.
However, since this advocacy is often successful, increased
responsibility is important.

	2. Admitting any negative impacts to Sierra Club
proposals would help the opponents of these proposals.  This
disadvantage should be accepted.

	The drastic actions to reduce air pollution proposed for
Los Angeles will surely have some negative impacts that should
be identified and evaluated.

Sincerely,