As the bumper sticker says, “I love my country but the government makes me nervous.”

Watchful wariness about government activities is a sign of a healthy democracy. Government agencies are not always right, and we shouldn’t expect them to be. That’s why the Founding Fathers designed an ingenious system of checks and balances that keep fallible public servants from losing sight of the big picture.

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which took effect in 1969, is one such check and balance. The law requires the government to let us – the citizens who pay the bills – know about likely impacts of proposed public projects. The law also requires government to listen to citizens who have an interest and opinion.

The policy requires scientific descriptions of what might happen if a project is implemented, called an environmental impact statement, and public input. This is how we make intelligent decisions that avoid harming public health, damaging our environment and burdening taxpayers. It’s easier and cheaper to prevent poisoning water, flooding neighbors or leaky oil tanks than to clean up later.

Congresswoman Cathy McMorris from Eastern Washington’s 5th Congressional District is leading a public review of NEPA with hearings around the country, starting Saturday in Spokane. The review will conclude with recommendations for changing this important policy (NEPA).

Periodic review of federal laws is important, and all aspects should be examined. For the public to get its money’s worth, the end product of the review should include previous evaluations and thoughtful recommendations for improving the application of NEPA, not find ways to gut it. There is always room for snipping unnecessary red tape in federal agencies, but the controversy about this policy involves more than government procedures.

Sometimes calls for “streamlining” NEPA are code words used by commercial interests seeking unfettered access to the public’s natural resources for private gain. Faster isn’t always better.

This review has been highly politicized. The policy of public input on public projects affecting our environment has been pilloried as a roadblock to development on national forests and other public lands. We, the people, own these lands. The government is our property manager, and we want to know about what our employee plans to do with our land. Who in their right mind wouldn’t check up on tenants before moving in?

This policy has been called the “Magna Carta” of America’s environmental laws. It is based on conservative principles – be prudent, understand a decision’s potential consequences, don’t assume that you know everything and “look before you leap.”

The law eloquently states the present generation is a trustee responsible for protecting public lands and the environment for future generations. NEPA guards against hasty, politically driven decisions that could result in costly damage. The policy does not dictate what decisions public officials should make, but tells officials how they should make them. It also contains checks and balances against incompetence, undue political influence and abuse of authority.

Agencies must publish environmental impact statements on proposed timber harvests, mines and other projects on our lands, and open its findings to public scrutiny. With NEPA, an agency doing a poor job can be challenged in court. That takes time and money, but so does cleaning up the consequences of poorly considered projects.

Judges can and do throw out faulty environmental impact reports. Last year, U.S. Appeals Court Judge Terrence Boyle of the 4th Circuit temporarily stopped a planned Navy training field near a North Carolina national wildlife refuge because of what he found to be an inadequate analysis of its impacts. Boyle, a conservative appointed by President Reagan in 1984, wrote thoughtfully in his opinion, “nature lacks a voice with which to speak for itself. Recognizing this, Congress has charged under federal law that agencies listen to the interests of the environment.”

Critics argue that listening to environmental interests creates “paralysis by analysis” that has blocked development projects. It’s time to let the agency professionals do their jobs, the critics complain. It’s better to be safe than sorry.

Citizens might know something important the agencies haven’t considered. Insular agencies afflicted with group think can make bad decisions. The space shuttle Columbia was lost largely because NASA managers wouldn’t listen to engineers who raised inconvenient questions about faulty safety procedures.

The public has a right to know what its government is doing and a responsibility to influence those decisions. NEPA is an important accountability tool – ensuring the people’s government operates in the sunshine and public servants serve the public interest. Congresswoman McMorris’ review should focus on how to make NEPA more effective in balancing conservation, development and citizen participation, not just faster.