More reasonably good news from the Bush admin

[dgibson]

But undoubtedly you'll never see it on the news. From The Outdoor Wire: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>WASHINGTON, D.C. (December 16, 2003) - The Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership welcomed good news from the Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers today regarding some of the most important wildlife habitat in North America. The EPA and the Corps announced they will not issue a new rule ceding federal Clean Water Act jurisdiction over isolated wetlands. The Bush Administration had been weighing whether it needed to issue such a rule on federal regulatory jurisdiction over isolated wetlands in light of the Supreme Court's so-called SWANCC ruling in 2001.

Ever since that ruling, the conservation community has urged continued federal protection of a habitat that migratory birds in particular rely so heavily on. The TRCP and its partner organizations have sought to bring that message directly to federal decision-makers in a concerted and constructive form. Recently the Bush Administration has reached out to the conservation community and offered to listen.

On Monday, November 24, the TRCP helped coordinate a meeting between leaders of several hunting, angling and conservation groups and Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton and her top staff. The isolated wetlands issue was a focus of that meeting and was soon followed up on in a White House meeting with President Bush just this past Friday, December 12th. At that meeting, the President clearly acknowledged the importance of protecting wetlands. His willingness to listen that day and consider the recommendations of the conservation community has led to a good decision for fish and wildlife. The EPA and Department of Interior, by engaging with the TRCP and other conservation groups, has ensured that the voices of millions of hunters and anglers who want to see wetlands protection continued, were heard.

The TRCP's Chairman Jim Range was an architect of the wetlands protections in the Clean Water Act when he was counsel to the Senate's Committee on the Environment and Public Works in the 1970's. Range applauded today's decision saying "it is hard overestimate how vital wetlands are to the overall health of American wildlife. By clearly stating today that there will continue to be no net loss of wetlands, the President has given Americans who care about fish and wildlife a big reason to smile."

President Bush's father, former President George H. W. Bush put forth the pledge of ensuring that there is "no net loss" of wetlands in the United States. It's a pledge that fish and wildlife advocates have held fast to as being vitally necessary. We thank the President for standing by this pledge.

For more on the TRCP and/or the wetlands issue go to http://www.trcp.org .<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>MY OPINION: Gee, Gunner, maybe you should just ask Bush to breach those dams on the Snake. The TRCP says he's listening.

In seriousness, this does seem to be a bit of good news, anyway.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 12-17-2003 07:42: Message edited by: dgibson ]</font>

 

[Ithaca 37]

Yup. I'll give Bush credit for this bit of news.

 

[Oak]

That's good news that he decided to drop that issue. What the article doesn't say, however, is that Bush himself was trying to draft a new rule earlier this year that would exclude isolated wetlands from protection. They basically decided that it's a fight they don't want to fight right now.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>...Mike Leavitt, the new administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, said Tuesday that Bush personally made the decision "not to issue a rule that could reduce" further wetlands protections under the Clean Water Act.

Leavitt said the administration wants to avoid "a contentious and lengthy rule-making debate" over disputed environmental benefits or losses by putting into force advisory guidelines issued in January...

...The EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers issued the January guidelines for carrying out the court's decision. Environmentalists said those guidelines went beyond the court ruling by adding "endangered species" and "crop irrigation" as insufficient grounds for protecting wetlands, isolated streams, ponds and marshes that don't cross state lines.

At the same time, the [Bush] administration began crafting new regulations specifically to exclude isolated ponds and streams, many of them dry for part of the year, as protected wetlands under the law...

...Last month, 218 House members, including 26 Republicans, independent Rep. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and all but 14 of the House's 205 Democrats, signed a letter to Bush urging him to scrap what they called an attempt "to remove federal protection from waters … that have been covered by the Clean Water Act for decades..."
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.billingsgazette.com/index.php?id=1&display=rednews/2003/12/17/build/nation/92-bushwetlands.inc

Oak

 

[dgibson]

Oak, that is a little fishy. I have heard several times of private property being labeled as "wetlands" or a "protected area" with very little justification. Stories range from someone reporting having seen a rare Midwestern Juju Bird stop briefly on the property to neighbors not liking the new owner's plans and getting it "wetlanded" just to keep him out. Of course, a good deal of these are just rumors and unsubstantiated hearsay.

Obviously I am for preserving whatever we can, but I cannot agree with essentially condemning someone's property, that they paid good money for, with no compensation or course of action. I would like to think that this is what some of the intentions were with the proposed changes, but I'm sure it was worded vaguely enough to allow for broad misinterpretation.