|
Early this November, the Los Angeles Times received a draft copy of the rules which confirmed the worst fears of many environmentalists.
Julie Sibbing, a wetlands policy expert at the National Wildlife Federation, said: "It's like writing off the entire Southwest from the Clean Water Act, where water is more precious than in any other region of the country. Up to 80 percent to 90 percent of streams in the Southwest would not fall under the Clean Water Act if this rule were to go forward." [2]
The environmentalists are joined by Ducks Unlimited in their concern as this will strip protection for a sizeable percentage of wetlands which are essential for preserving habitat for birds.
"This is a worst-case scenario," said Dr. Alan Wentz, Ducks Unlimited's senior group manager for conservation. "It represents a radical change of direction from 30 years of Clean Water Act implementation and judicial interpretation, and if this becomes the Corps' interpretation of the law, it will create irreparable harm to those wetlands of greatest value to waterfowl, such as the prairie potholes of the northern Great Plains." [3]
The Bush administration is finding that unlike their rewriting the rules for the Clean Air Act, there is significant opposition to their proposal to revise our clean water laws.
On November 24th a federal court issued a ruling that set back the drive for developers and mining companies to roll back the Clean Water Act. Earthjustice (an environmental legal organization) represented the National Resources Defense League and the Sierra Club to defend the current permitting process for affecting the destruction of wetlands.
"We went to court to ensure that the already excessive destruction allowed under the existing permits was not made worse by a return to the days when headwater streams and wetlands were virtually written-off for protection," said Daniel Rosenberg, an attorney with NRDC. "For the developer and mining interests who brought this case, weak permits aren't good enough, they want whole classes of streams and wetlands to lose Clean Water Act protection. Today we give thanks that the court recognized their case was a turkey. [4]
And on November 25, 2003, 216 members of Congress (with 26 Republicans) signed a letter which was delivered to the White House urging them to not lessen the protections under the Clean Water Act for the seasonal wetlands. The signers believe that the Clean Water Act was one of the most successful laws in the US history and it should not be weakened.
"The Clean Water Act is a landmark piece of legislation which shouldn't be diluted," said Rep. Jim Saxton (R-N.J.), one of the letter's authors. "Congress has few responsibilities greater than preserving clean water for future generations, and improving the quality of water damaged by many years of neglect."[5]
Currently the spokespersons for the EPA and Council on Environmental Quality say they have not yet decided how they will resolve this issue and they are reviewing the comments that have arrived. Yet, the draft rules are very worrying as are the prior actions of the Bush administration in regards to the environment.
Our elected representatives are correct in understanding the importance of this law. You can help by notifying your senators and representative and either thank them for their part in stopping the rule change or encourage them to join with their colleagues in this effort. Visit the site (http://ga0.org/campaign/jurisdiction2) provided by Earthjustice for more information and to find out how your elected officials stand on this matter.
[1] "Fanatics, Fools and Alpha Males", Arianna Huffington, Salon, November 27, 2003.
[2] Bush rule would ease wetlands protections , Sharon Shogren, LA Times, November 7, 2003.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Court Throws Out Industry's Challenge to Clean Water Act Permits, Earthjustice Press release, November 26, 2003.
[5] Changes in Water Policy Opposed, Sharon Shogren, LA Times, November 26, 2003.
|
|
