SPOKANE, Wash. — If the first public hearing on changing the nation's landmark environmental protection act is any indication, the law may be liked to death.

No one at the hearing on reforming the National Environmental Policy Act attacked the law, although Republicans noted repeatedly that it needed to be reformed.

"We want to improve the environment,'' insisted U.S. Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, at the beginning of the April 23 meeting in Spokane, Wash. "But people are so wedded to bureaucratic inefficiency, they don't want to see change.''

Democrats were much more strident in defending NEPA, saying the law is the epitome of democracy because it ensures people will have input in major government decisions.

"NEPA is about people's access to the democratic process,'' said U.S. Rep. Jay Inslee, D-Wash., the only Democratic lawmaker at the hearing. "They can protect their water and land and air. It makes sure that agencies listen to people.''

The debate over NEPA is one of those obtuse insider battles that the general public often ignores, but which are profoundly important.

President Nixon signed NEPA in 1970, and it serves as the basis for federal management of public lands. The law requires federal agencies to conduct lengthy environmental reviews before approving projects. It is key to limiting development on public land and protecting endangered species.

But critics, many of them in the GOP, contend the law has spawned a nightmare of litigation as lawsuits are filed to stop or alter proposed projects. They contend the law has also produced "paralysis by analysis'' as projects are delayed.

Luke Russell, director of environmental affairs for Coeur d'Alene Mines Corp., said "NEPA today has grown into a monster, devouring millions of dollars and years of time.''

The law does not contain an adequate definition of "significant'' environmental impacts, or deadlines for finishing studies, Russell said.

"The entire region's economy is throttled when projects never materialize and jobs are sent offshore,'' Russell said.

Inslee said that mining companies "want to make it easier to take our gold out of our mountains and not pay anything.''

While natural resource industries like logging and mining have long opposed the law, GOP lawmakers are mindful that many voters consider the environment a major priority.

"NEPA was visionary in its time,'' said U.S. Rep. Cathy McMorris, R-Wash., a freshman who was appointed head of a task force studying whether the law should be changed.

But the law now covers dozens of regulations and has spawned 1,500 court battles, she said. The average environmental impact statement now runs 493 pages and costs $500,000 to $2 million to produce, she said.

"I consider myself an environmentalist,'' McMorris said. "We should consider if there is a better way to protect the environment, and not just have delay after delay.''

Conservationists fear the congressional review is a backhanded way of weakening environmental protection laws by an administration that wants to drill in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge.

"We are worried this is a first step in undermining NEPA,'' said Mike Peterson of The Lands Council, a Spokane environmental group that picketed outside the hearing while supporters wore "I Support NEPA'' stickers.

The task force will spend the next six months gathering information about NEPA and decide whether the law needs to be changed, and how. Five additional public meetings are scheduled around the country, although the times and places have not been set.

The task force of 11 Republicans and nine Democrats will prepare a report this fall. Legislation, if any, is not likely to be introduced until next year.

At the Spokane meeting, the invited list of speakers, which conservationists feared would all be NEPA critics, turned out to have fairly bland complaints. The hearing covered issues in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana and Alaska.

Thomas Jenson, who has worked as an attorney on NEPA matters for two decades, told lawmakers the problem was not the law but the way it was implemented, especially conflicts that are constantly framed as jobs versus wildlife.

NEPA was created to stop "myopic, dishonest and dumb government,'' Jenson said, and has largely succeeded. Conflicts arise when the values of one interest group conflict with those of another, and federal agencies cannot resolve the differences, he said.

Craig Urness of the Pacific Seafood Group said his company has a vested interest in preserving species, so it can continue fishing into the future. But he said the NEPA process takes so long that information becomes stale long before it can be acted upon.

"Fishery management must have timely and up to date data,'' Urness said. "NEPA is a roadblock.''

Paul Fish of Mountain Gear, a Spokane outdoor recreation store, said he was opposed to any change in NEPA.

"NEPA protects our lakes, rivers, mountains and forests,'' Fish said. "Our economy depends on a healthy environment.''

Gohmert said he was opposed to any changes that would weaken NEPA, but not to changes that would streamline the process. Gohmert, a retired judge, said he wouldn't be in Congress if he did not want to improve the nation.

"If I cannot help make this place better for kids, I'll go home,'' he said.