Tees, turtles, and favoritism

A CLOSE FRIEND of President Bush is trying to build a golf course in northwestern Connecticut. Many residents in the towns of Norfolk and North Canaan oppose the 780-acre project, lamenting its effect on the forests, meadows, and trout streams in their corner of the Litchfield Hills. And while a federal agency has concluded that the project would not harm the habitat of a turtle on the government's list of threatened species, opponents suspect - not without reason - that the decision was rushed through while Bush is still in office.

The developer, Roland Betts, knows Bush from his college days and was a co-owner with Bush of the Texas Rangers baseball team. His plan would draw 150,000 gallons a day of groundwater from the highland site. Wildlife biologists are worried that this loss of water, the use of pesticides on the golf course, and the movement of 480,000 cubic yards of soil to create the 18 holes could make Betts's land and surrounding acreage less hospitable to bog turtles. In 1998, a Connecticut state biologist found a female bog turtle on land near, but not on, Betts's property.

In July, a consultant hired by Betts filed a report with the US Fish and Wildlife Service, stating he could find no bog turtles on Betts's land and that the land was at a higher elevation than the turtles usually inhabit. Even though Fish and Wildlife officials knew that consultants for project opponents were on the verge of filing their own report, the officials immediately notified the US Army Corps of Engineers that the golf course presented no problems with regard to threatened or endangered species.

As a result, neither Fish and Wildlife nor the corps weighed the report of the opponents' consultants, which found - not surprisingly - that wetlands near Betts's land are suitable sites for the turtle, especially as global warming makes higher elevations more to their liking.

This is not the first time that consultants on opposite sides of an issue have come up with conflicting findings. But Fish and Wildlife, which denies there was pressure for a quick decision, should have considered both before reaching its conclusion. The Endangered Species Act requires the agency to use the best scientific data available in making decisions.

To abide by the law and end any suspicion that Betts is getting special treatment from his buddy in the Oval Office, Fish and Wildlife should withdraw its finding until appointees in the next administration have a chance to review the evidence - all the evidence. The State of Connecticut, for its part, should freeze consideration of the project until the turtle question gets a more thorough airing.