A lawsuit against the Hawaii Tourism Authority seeks to block the agency from proceeding with a three-year, $114 million marketing program until it does an assessment of potential environmental impact of more tourists and “alien species.”
The outcome of the lawsuit, filed by the Sierra Club in January, ultimately could prohibit tourism promotion in Nevada and at least 38 other states, unless each undertakes lengthy, costly studies of the environmental effects of visitors and “alien species” — non-native plants and animals.
This case has alarmed a coalition of tourism groups because it could set a precedent for halting tourism promotion. But it also raises a provocative underlying issue that Nevada has faced before, most notably, perhaps at environmentally fragile Lake Tahoe: the struggle between the need for environmental protection and economic health.
Environmental protection is vital to tourism for obvious reasons. Who wants to visit a place that is polluted, eroded and otherwise ruined? That’s why Nevada and California have teamed up for the last 33 years to protect Lake Tahoe from losing the legendary clarity of its deep blue water. But we also work to sustain a healthy tourism economy at Lake Tahoe, the “jewel of the Sierra?’
We can — and do — enjoy our natural resources without ruining the environment, and we need not force our number-one industry into recession to protect the beauty of the great outdoors. Part of the value of scenic wonders is the delight and appreciation people derive from experiencing them, and to do this requires some degree of human contact. And why not? Humans are an essential part of the ecosystem.
Nevada does not have the same state environmental law as Hawaii, hut many of Nevada’s tourist attractions, such as national parks, recreation areas and national forests, are public lands managed by federal agencies subject to the National Environmental Policy Act, which established the use of environmental assessments.
A broad application of prohibitive environmental laws without specific evidence of environmental threats could curtail public access to Lake Mend, Great Basin National Park, Lake Tahoe and all of Nevada’s other natural treasures, as well as those of neighboring states that attract Nevada’s visitors, such as Death Valley and the Grand Canyon. Weren’t these places created so that the public could enjoy them?
The lawsuit applied Hawaii’s broad state environmental protection act, based on suppositions that appear rather extreme. It presented no evidence of environmental damage by visitors.
Moreover, the Hawaii Tourism Authority intends the marketing campaign to restore its tourism, which has suffered greatly from the economic crisis in the Pacific Rim, the major source of Hawaii’s international visitors. Hawaii wants to attract visitors who will spend more money and stay longer; they’re not expecting hoards of new visitors to arrive and trample the beaches.
If tourists are construed as an environmental problem, any other business or activity could be vulnerable to the same crippling effect.
Nevada Commission on Tourism has encouraged the 11-member Western States Tourism Policy Council to side with the state of Hawaii, and through that effort has seen the Travel Industry Association of America, American Hotel & Motel Association, Air Transport Association of America and the National Tow Association join as co-intervenors as well. S
