Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org

Bog Deal

Rate this topic


Guest guest

Recommended Posts

http://www.motherjones.com/news/dailymojo/2003/12/12_526.html

 

December 19, 2003 Bog Deal

Perhaps for the first time, President Bush has done right by environmentalists

-- not to say the environment. On Wednesday his EPA abandoned efforts to relax

protections for millions of acres of U.S. wetlands by narrowing the scope of the

Clean Water Act.

 

EPA head Michael O. Leavitt announced his agency wouldn't follow through on an

internal draft proposal that would have left many of the nation’s federally

protected streams and wetlands vulnerable. The Clean Water Act was developed in

1972 as a way to protect navigable waters and their tributaries, adjacent

wetlands, and man-made waterways, from drainage and other damaging effects.

Leavitt said: " At the root of this is a commitment from the Bush administration

to achieve the goal of no net loss of wetlands. He added that the waters

" function as nature's kidneys " and " add immense value to economic and aesthetic

bounties of this country. "

 

The plan had drawn outrage from an odd assortment of interest groups including

environmentalists, conservationists and hunters, not to mention Congress.

 

Environmentalists expressed relief. Julie Sibbing of the National Wildlife

Federation told the Washington Post, " I have to admit this was a real positive

development and a win for wetlands and wildlife. " Wetlands are crucial to the

environment for filtering pollution from our drinking water sources, maintaining

water quality in our lakes and rivers, and providing habitat to fish, waterfowl

and other wildlife.

 

Bush received over 133,000 public comments about the proposed plans. Last month,

218 House members, including 26 Republicans, one independent and all but 14 of

the House's 205 Democrats, signed a letter to Bush asking him to rethink his

decision. Carl Pope, Executive Director of the Sierra Club said that the public

outcry " left the Bush administration with little choice but to rescind its

misguided proposal, " and further explained the rationale behind the initial

desire to weaken the Clean Water Act:

" Mining companies, developers and oil companies sought this change in clean

water rules because it would have been easier for them to dispose of their waste

and fill in wetlands if there were no government oversight. But polluting these

small streams and wetlands would have inevitably meant dirtier water downstream,

more flooding, and fewer recreational opportunities for hunters, anglers and

others who depend upon clean water. Once again the Bush administration was on

track to allow polluters to benefit at our expense. "

 

 

 

 

The announcement doesn't call for an all-out celebration. Last January, the Bush

administration issued a directive asking for federal authority over a " vast

majority " of U.S. wetlands. The problem is " vast majority " leaves out isolated

wetlands and non-navigable waters—blurry terminology which most

environmentalists and watchdog groups agree will result in a reduction in the

number of protected waters.

 

Moreover, a ruling yesterday from the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New

Orleans says that both the Clean Water Act and the Oil Protection Act can be

applied only to navigable waters and to waters clearly adjacent to navigable

waters. Basically, the ruling limits the types of water the U.S. can impose

regulations on, and further confuses the issue of what wetlands can and cannot

be regulated.

 

The January change is a direct result of a bizarre Supreme Court decision from

January 2001, when the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers attempted to prevent

developers from constructing a landfill near Chicago. The Corps tried to use the

Clean Water Act to block the project, claiming the landfill would destroy about

17 acres of wetlands for birds.

 

In its decision on " Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County vs. the U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers, " the Supreme Court said the Corps was overstepping its

boundary, and ruled the Clean Water Act didn't extend protection to " isolated

water bodies based on their use by migratory birds. " The Bush administration

then took this decision, to rewrite Clean Water Act rules to comply with the

Supreme Court ruling, known as the " SWANCC decision. "

 

Mother Jones recently ran an article about how the Bush administration used the

Supreme Court ruling to weaken environmental protection. Ted Williams reports:

" Until January 10, 2003, many of the streams and wetlands on 3,997 acres of the

expansion area were protected by the Clean Water Act. But on that date the Bush

administration, through its Army Corps of Engineers and Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA), issued a " guidance document " instructing field agents on how not

to apply the Clean Water Act. No longer were they to bust parties who filled or

fouled " isolated waters " that are non-navigable and " intrastate " (completely in

one state) just because migratory birds are present. No definition of " isolated

waters " was provided, but the agencies have since proclaimed them to be streams

that flow intermittently or dip underground, and wetlands that don't have

obvious connections to larger waters. The document also ordered agents to seek

" headquarters approval " before issuing a citation, thereby dooming enforcement

by initiating an endlessly ascending chain reaction of butt-covering permission

requests.

 

With these directives came a proposed rule-making, suggesting that isolated

waters don't count anymore and inviting comment on how to define the word

" isolated " so as to make the Clean Water Act more palatable to those it

inconveniences. If the rule goes through, it could degrade 60 to 80 percent of

the stream miles in the United States. "

 

 

 

 

 

Environmental groups hoped that in deciding not to pursue efforts to further

reduce regulation on U.S. wetlands, Bush might also revoke the January

rollbacks. He didn’t. Here's Daniel Rosenberg of the Natural Resources Defense

Council:

" …we remain concerned that the two agencies have not withdrawn the directive

they issued to their staffs last January, which abandoned protection for 20

million acres of wetlands, as well as an unknown number of streams. While

dropping plans for weakening the Clean Water Act is a big step in the right

direction, our wetlands and streams have already been damaged, and that

destruction will continue unless the agencies withdraw that directive. "

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Find out what made the Top Searches of 2003

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...