From:

LA Times, December 8, 2003

EDITORIAL
Dirty Trick on Waterways

Relying on nonsensical thinking and a narrow court ruling with dubious
application, the Bush administration wants to gut crucial segments of
the Clean Water Act. It isn't just the tree-hugging crowd raising alarms
over this action, which, if it prevails, would strip protections from
waterways that don't flow at least half the year - in other words,
most of the streams and ponds of Southern California.

The administration's proposed rule change, as reported by Times staffer
Elizabeth Shogren, could trigger everything from pollution discharges
into the San Gabriel River to the paving over of the region's vernal
pools, those seasonal havens for migratory birds and endangered species.
No longer would U.S. officials have jurisdiction over "ephemeral"
waterways - those fed by rain or snowmelt rather than groundwater, or
unfilled with water at least six months a year. Most natural waters in
the southwestern United States, the driest region in the nation, fit
that description.

The administration spin is that this change was forced by a 2001 U.S.
Supreme Court decision allowing construction at a pond in Illinois. The
high court said that, in this instance, the feds lacked authority over
the pond - actually, an abandoned mining site that had filled with
water - because it was isolated from other waters, in a single state
and couldn't be navigated by boat.

Though the administration has seized on this case and expanded it to
the absurd, subsequent circuit court rulings have rightly recognized
that the 2001 decision should be seen in its most narrow scope - and
that the Clean Water Act still covers streams and wetlands. Even many
federal officials scratch their heads over the illogic that lets an
Illinois mining-pit ruling affect sprawling networks of streams and
ponds, which, in turn, feed rivers, lakes and the ocean.

Administration officials say states would be free to regulate these
waterways. Rather than embracing this power, most states vehemently
oppose the change, saying they lack the money or technical staff.
Shifting responsibility from federal to state hands would create a
duplicative and costly bureaucracy. Or it could leave precious natural
resources, already under assault, ripe for despoiling.

In a letter, strongly worded for bureaucrats, the California Resources
Agency and Environmental Protection Agency protested the move, saying it
would "essentially eviscerate" protection for wetlands and streams.
Reeking rivers and unswimmable beaches don't help the economy. This
proposal is as toxic as unregulated factory pollution. The White House
should dump it before it takes U.S. water protection back 30 years.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To get off the IOWA-TOPICS list, send any message to:
[log in to unmask]