I noticed the LA Times and the New York Times ran disturbing reports this morning on the Bush administration’s environmental policies. Thought the articles dealt with different areas environmental regulations, taken together, the pieces demonstrate just how serious the administration is in undermining our natural resources.
First, the LA Times reported that the administration has crafted a new rule to gut the Clean Water Act, “stripping many wetlands and streams of federal pollution controls and making them available to being filled for commercial development.”
In an internal memo obtained by the LA Times, the administration will propose changing enforcement of the Clean Water Act to end protection for “ephemeral washes or streams” that do not have groundwater as a source. The document explains that streams that flow for less than six months a year would also lose protection, as would many wetlands.
“State and federal officials have estimated that up to 20 million acres of wetlands, 20% of the wetlands outside of Alaska, could lose protection under a new rule like the one in the draft,” the Times reported. “The effect would be greater in California and other parts of the arid West, where many streams flow only seasonally or after rain or snowmelts.”
In fairness, the administration responded that changes to the Clean Water Act would be open to a public process. That’s true. Nevertheless, the document obtained by the Times shows exactly what the Bush administration wants to see done, thus making its intentions for the Clean Water Act clear.
The administration official who leaked the document to the paper said the policy, if adopted, would “dramatically cut back the scope of Clean Water Act jurisdiction.” The source added, “It would eliminate protections for ephemeral streams, which could be in the millions of miles of streams, particularly out West where many streams do not flow all year long.”
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.”
As if this news wasn’t bad enough, the front page of the New York Times reported today that the Environmental Protection Agency, which has been investigating 50 power plants for violating the Clean Air Act, is going to drop the cases altogether.
EPA lawyers told the Times that changes in the administration’s enforcement policies will mean these cases will be examined under “new, less stringent rules” that take effect next month, as opposed to the more rigorous standards in place when the investigations of the power plants began.
The Times reported, “The lawyers said the new rules include exemptions that would make it almost impossible to sustain the investigations into the plants, which are scattered around the country and owned by 10 utilities.”
Any guesses on which candidate received lavish donations from these 10 utilities?
Here’s the kicker: “The lawyers said the change grew out of a recommendation by Vice President Dick Cheney’s energy task force, which urged the government two years ago to study industry complaints about its enforcement actions.”
Yes, that’s the same Cheney energy task force that refuses to release information to the public on the most basic details about how the group operated. Among the information that has been most sought after, and most resisted by the White House, is a list of who, exactly, Cheney met with while formulating the administration’s new energy policy.
Is it any wonder why the White House would want to keep this secret?