Advisory Council Votes to Alter Historic Preservation Law, Raising Concerns Nationwide
An advisory council predominantly composed of supporters of former President Trump has voted to ease restrictions on a long-standing historic preservation law. This decision could potentially permit federal projects that pose risks to historic sites across the United States.
AYESHA RASCOE, HOST: Allies of President Trump voted to weaken protections for historic sites by making it easier for the government to build near them. That could help pave the way for controversial projects like Trump’s proposed 250-foot arch in Washington, D.C. Experts say any change would have consequences across the country. Here to talk about this is NPR’s Rachel Treisman. Thanks for joining us.
RACHEL TREISMAN, BYLINE: Hey, Ayesha. Thanks for having me.
RASCOE: Tell us about federal construction near historic sites. Like, how does it normally work?
The Existing Historic Preservation Process
For the past 60 years, the National Historic Preservation Act has been instrumental in safeguarding historic sites. This law covers a wide array of sites, from single trees to expansive landscapes. Federal projects in proximity to these sites must undergo a comprehensive review process known as Section 106. This process mandates federal agencies to assess potential harm to historic sites and explore ways to mitigate such impacts. In doing so, they collaborate with local governments, tribes, and preservation groups.
Push for Change
The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, currently dominated by Trump allies, is spearheading the push for change. The acting chair of the council requested members to vote via email within a week on amending Section 106, and the vote concluded with a decision to modify the language. This move, although anticipated, has sparked significant discourse. Sara Bronin, who led this council under President Biden, commented on the panel’s political dynamics.
SARA BRONIN: “Because President Trump has such a power over 21 of the 24 members, it’s very likely that this proposal will be enacted.”
The White House and Department of the Interior have not yet provided feedback on the proposal. However, an internal memo from the council suggests that the change aims to reduce confusion and delays in the current process.
Implications of the Proposed Changes
Experts warn that altering Section 106 could lead to the irreversible loss of historic sites. The proposed changes would narrow the definition of what constitutes a historic property. Under this new language, landmarks like the Grand Canyon may no longer receive protection. Additionally, the proposal seeks to redefine what constitutes harm and eliminate requirements for consultation with tribal nations and public input. Greg Werkheiser of Cultural Heritage Partners emphasized the broader implications.
GREG WERKHEISER: “The public will be completely cut out of any conversation around the future of places that matter to them in this country.”
RASCOE: What would this mean for the projects that Trump wants to build in D.C., like the arch?
TREISMAN: I’ve listened to a lot of meetings about this proposed arch near Arlington National Cemetery, and at every single one, historic preservation experts say it can’t move forward until it clears Section 106. And these changes would likely make that much easier. But again, experts stress that this is about so much more than just construction in D.C. Every state would be affected, but not right away. There’s still a few more steps in the process before these changes could take effect, and that includes a 30-day public comment period. And Werkheiser says to expect legal challenges. There’s a huge coalition of nonprofits and advocacy groups that say they will fight this.
RASCOE: That’s NPR’s Rachel Treisman. Thank you so much.
TREISMAN: Thank you.
(SOUNDBITE OF BRUCE COCKBURN’S “TRAIN IN THE RAIN”)
Accuracy and availability of NPR transcripts may vary. Transcript text may be revised to correct errors or match updates to audio. Audio on npr.org may be edited after its original broadcast or publication. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.
This article was originally written by www.npr.org
Comments are closed.