When President Clinton issued a directive banning road-building on 58 million acres of national forest land, critics denounced it as a usurpation of congressional powers. When President Bush – not Congress – revoked protection for 9 million acres in Tongass National Forest in Alaska, those same critics cheered. They cheered again when the president – not Congress – devised a roadless rule proposal that touts input from ever-changing governors but leaves ultimate authority in the executive branch.

In short, this hardly settles the matter. It just changes who will file the lawsuits.

This political sleight-of-hand hides the real issue, and it isn’t over the proper process. It’s about what part of the last remaining roadless areas of this country should be open for commercial ventures and whether the country has larger budget priorities than forest-road building.

Our national forests are like an old house with a deteriorating roof and leaky plumbing. Instead of spending money on maintenance and upkeep, we continually add wings because, in part, it keeps the builders employed. Over time, those new additions also deteriorate, and the process repeats itself.

It’s through this prism that the nation ought to judge the various roadless proposals. This isn’t just “the enviros” vs. “timber-hungry” companies.

There are more than 440,000 miles of forest roads. That’s nearly 10 times the mileage of the interstate highway system. The Forest Service’s maintenance backlog for roads and parks is an estimated $13 billion to $16 billion. The backlog for national forest hiking trails in Washington and Oregon alone is $9 million. Because of this, the feds are imposing fees on users, while it subsidizes road-building for private companies.

Timber from national forests only accounts for 3 percent to 5 percent of the country’s lumber and paper supplies. From 1987 to 1997, new road construction declined by 75 percent. And the trend is toward the United States importing more lumber. So why, taxpayers might ask, are we arguing about spending more federal dollars on building expensive roads in some of the most rugged areas of the nation?

The country is in significant debt, costs for war and homeland security are mounting and our health-care system is in critical condition. Giving governors more say over forest roads is fine, but the larger issue is whether such spending is a national priority.

It would be better if Congress, rather than presidents, figured out what areas should remain roadless … once and for all. The Idaho delegation has had years to come up with a plan for its 9 million acres of roadless areas and hasn’t shown the will to do so. It’s difficult to see how a governor can change that.

Critics were right about Clinton usurping congressional authority over roadless areas. But Bush’s proposal is a tacit concession that Congress still isn’t up to the task.