Everyday I drive the stretch of Highway 99 between Lodi and Sacramento, and everyday I see the foothills to the east and the coastal range to the west being slowly swallowed in those urban tendrils that stretch north and south, from Sacramento through Elk Grove, from Stockton through Galt. I have to say that I resent the sprawl that is gradually consuming the land’s beauty and utility.

The Central Valley, and the land comprising those northern parts that include Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties, is the great breadbasket of the West, California’s agricultural heartland.The valley’s extended growing season and fertile soil are the underpinnings of the largest single concentration of fruit, nut farms and vineyards in the United States.

It’s important to note that California’s economy accounts for about 14 percent of the nation’s Gross Domestic Product, the largest percentage of any other state, and the many industries that comprise California’s economy are dwarfed by the state’s giant agricultural industry, an industry twice as big as the next largest, the aerospace industry.

Herein lies the crux of the matter: The valley’s natural beauty, its economic utility and viability are issues that can’t be separated from one another.

This inevitably leads me to the question of environmental stewardship provided by our elected representatives. A bill approved last Thursday by a U.S. House of Representatives committee provides for sweeping changes to the Endangered Species Act, changes that hand significant rights to property owners while limiting the federal government’s ability to protect the environment. The bill was proposed by House Resource Committee Chairman Richard Pombo, from California’s 11th District based out of Tracy.

In speaking about the bill, Pombo said, “It’s about a new era in protecting species and protecting habitat at the same time that we protect property owners.”

The bill is essentially an effort to lift certain environmental restrictions on developers. I don’t think it’s any coincidence that the bill was conveniently proposed by a U.S. Congressman from the Central Valley. He’s a Republican! Who could have guessed that? And I’m not usually one to strike such a clear partisan position.

The debate is always couched in these terms: conservative property-rights activists verse liberals and their big government social welfare state.

I would like to suggest that it is in all of our interests to protect the environment that sustains us. Pombo’s bill specifically targets the critical habitat provisions of the Endangered Species Act. These are provisions that most developers get hung up on when starting a new subdivision of tract homes to pave the landscape with.

“It is a drastic mistake to eliminate the provisions that have to do with the protection of habitat for endangered species,” said Representative Jim Saxton, a Republican from New Jersey.

Thank God for those urban Republicans. I like to think they bring a little more perspective to the environmental issue because their land has long since been paved over. Saxton attempted to offer an amendment to restore critical habitat protections to Pombo’s bill; however, it failed on a voice vote.

Come on all of you little Young Republicans out there, I’m trying to reach you as much as I’m trying to reach the tree huggers drinking up their Air America.

Deep down I can accept the sprawl and slow growing concrete entrails as unavoidable, but it doesn’t mean I have to like it. Perhaps if we could all better appreciate the context in which we live we could better balance our urge to expand with an urge to conserve. But what the hell do I know? Kyle Hardwick can be reached at [email protected]