-----Original Message-----
From: Ed Hopkins <
[log in to unmask]>
To:
[log in to unmask]
Sent: Fri, Jun 17, 2011 10:35 am
Subject: Re: [WATER-ISSUES] NYT: A Sneaky Attack on Clean Water Rules
I'm sure that there will be a similar effort
to handcuff the EPA when its funding bill comes up, in a couple of weeks.
These restrictions on the Corps and EPA may well pass the House,
although we will continue to try to stop them. They put the EPA on
the defense, but of course they will not become law unless the Senate agrees
to them. We need to persuade Senators to oppose amendments like these.
We also need to hold elected officials who support these amendments
accountable.
In the vote on the Corps amendment this
week, not a single Republican supported the amendment to allow the Corps
to take administrative action to clarify the scope of the Clean Water Act.
Even the more conservative sportsmens' groups who are very involved
in this issue were unable to get any Republican support.
If people want more info on this issue,
please contact me or Dalal Aboulhosn. We also have info on our website
at http://www.sierraclub.org/watersentinels/policy/default.aspx
(We're out of commission for the
next few days because of an office move.)
Ed Hopkins
Sierra Club
408 C Street, NE
Washington DC 20002
202-675-7908 phone
202-547-6009 fax
[log in to unmask]
From:
Rita Chapman <[log in to unmask]>
To:
[log in to unmask]
Date:
06/17/2011 11:16 AM
Subject:
Re: [WATER-ISSUES]
NYT: A Sneaky Attack on Clean Water Rules
Sent by:
Discussion of
Water Issues <[log in to unmask]>
What does this do to USEPA,
the nation’s other clean water enforcer?
~ Rita Chapman
~~ ><> ><>
~~ ><> ~ ><> ><> ~~ ><> ><>
~~
Rita Chapman
Clean Water Program Director
Water Sentinels Program
Sierra Club Michigan Chapter
ofc: 517.484.2372
http://michigan.sierraclub.org/issues/greatlakes/watersentinels.html
Keep Clean Water Clean!
Nature stays true and
keeps the faith. I can do no less.
From: Discussion of Water Issues
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Ed Hopkins
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 10:08 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [WATER-ISSUES] NYT: A Sneaky Attack on Clean Water Rules
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/17/opinion/17fri3.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=clean%20water&st=cse
A Sneaky Attack on Clean Water Rules
Published: June 16, 2011
Congress often kills or delays federal regulations it doesn’t like by
simply denying agencies the money they need to carry them out. This spares
Congress from actually debating the regulation on its merits.
House Republicans are adept at this, especially on environmental rules.
Their latest intended victim is a worthy initiative aimed at protecting
streams and wetlands from development and pollution.
In April, the Obama administration issued new guidelines to federal agencies
charged with enforcing the Clean Water Act, chiefly the Army Corps of Engineers.
The guidelines, which the administration hopes to codify in a federal regulation
later this year, are badly needed. Two muddled Supreme Court decisions,
and earlier guidance from the George H. W. Bush administration, had effectively
limited protections to navigable waterways. The new guidelines provide
much-needed protections to thousands of miles of small streams and millions
of acres of wetlands that are no less crucial to the health of the nation’s
drinking water and its aquatic ecosystems.
The guidelines simply reaffirmed the original intent of the 1972 Clean
Water Act, which was to protect “all the waters of the United States.”
But this was far too radical for home builders, farmers, oil companies
— anyone with an interest in filling in streams and wetlands. On Wednesday,
their friends on the House Appropriations Committee added a provision to
the Army Corps of Engineers spending bill prohibiting the corps from spending
any money to “develop, adopt, implement, administer or enforce” the new
guidelines. This effectively kills them.
The administration must make sure that this reckless provision does not
make it into the Senate version of the spending bill. Americans care deeply
about clean water. They want more protections, not fewer.