Theme : Bush
War on the Wetlands Is Bush's Latest Environmental Assault
His definition of 'waters' would extend a free hand to industrial polluters.
by Paul Koretz and Joan Hartmann
The Bush administration issues daily communiques on a seemingly inevitable
war with Iraq, but beneath the radar it is engaged in an assault on the
nation's environmental laws. The Kyoto treaty on global warming, the National
Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act
and provisions to protect public lands have been attacked. An obscure
notice in the Jan. 15 Federal Register listed the latest target, the Clean
Water Act.
While President Bush tries to convince the average American of his commitment
to the "no net loss" wetlands policy of his father, his administration's
actions show his real intentions. He is now seeking a review of how the
"waters of the United States" should be defined under the Clean
Water Act, the first step toward limiting the water bodies subject to
federal protections.
Congress passed the Clean Water Act in 1972 because polluted rivers were
catching fire and because almost half of the wetlands in the lower 48
states had disappeared. Although the law has not yet fully accomplished
its objective "to restore and maintain the chemical, physical and
biological integrity of the nation's waters," it has resulted in
vast improvements in how we protect our nonnavigable waterways. Factories
have learned to limit their discharges of pollutants -- often saving money
as they limit or recycle waste products -- and the pace of wetlands loss
has slowed.
The tourism, fishing and recreation industries also reap financial benefits
because of clean water and healthy wetlands. People flock to visit water
bodies and to live near them. Much wildlife depends on wetlands at some
point in its life cycle.
The last thing Americans need is to roll back the progress we have made
in the last 30 years.
Bush's excuse for seeking to redefine "waters of the U.S."
derives from a 2001 decision by a sharply divided Supreme Court, which
struck down the "migratory bird rule." This decision would restrict
the federal government from regulating "isolated wetlands" whose
only link to interstate commerce is use by migratory birds.
The constitutionality of the Clean Water Act derives from the authority
of Congress to make laws regarding interstate commerce. Thus, a commercial
interest must be at stake for the federal government to exert its regulatory
powers over water bodies.
Although the court has generally set a low threshold for meeting the
commerce test, the ruling erected a higher threshold in the wetlands context,
holding that migratory bird use fails to meet the test. This has given
the Bush administration the ammunition needed to slowly dismantle the
Clean Water Act by preparing to restrict the number of wetlands entitled
to protection. Without protection, polluters would be able to discharge
wastes into California's water bodies without fear of federal interference.
Polls have consistently shown that Americans overwhelmingly support the
Clean Water Act. But while attention is riveted on the prospect of war
with Iraq, the administration is waging guerrilla operations against the
environment by systematically dismantling the critical provisions of the
nation's decades-old, bipartisan environmental policy.
This war is well underway and there will be many casualties. Is anyone
paying attention?
Paul Koretz is a Democratic state assemblyman representing the 42nd District,
which includes West Hollywood, Beverly Hills and part of Los Angeles.
Joan Hartmann, an adjunct professor with the environmental studies program
at USC, is on the assemblyman's environmental advisory committee.
Original address of this text :
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0131-10.htm
Please copy this address to the address bar of your
internet browser and press the "enter" key.
(We prefer not to put actual links because
often page locations change and then our log files get cluttered with
error messages
- if the address does not work try to find it from the homepage of the
website in question).
|