Published on Thursday, November 6, 2003 by the Los Angeles Times

Going Backwards

Rule Drafted That Would Dilute the Clean Water Act

by Elizabeth Shogren

WASHINGTON - Bush administration officials have drafted a rule that would
significantly narrow the scope of the Clean Water Act, stripping many
wetlands and streams of federal pollution controls and making them available
to being filled for commercial development.

The rule, spelled out in an internal document provided to The Times by a
senior government official, says that Clean Water Act protection would no
longer be provided to "ephemeral washes or streams" that do not have
groundwater as a source. Streams that flow for less than six months a year
would also lose protection, as would many wetlands, according to the
document.

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 effect would be greater in
California and other parts of the arid West, where many streams flow only
seasonally or after rain or snowmelts.

Administration officials cautioned that no rule change could happen without
a public process, which would take many months and offer the public a chance
to comment. However, the draft was the first indication of the direction
that at least some administration officials want to take in rewriting the
rule.

The new rule-making exercise was triggered by a 2001 Supreme Court ruling
that limited federal jurisdiction over isolated, non-navigable, intrastate
waters and wetlands. But the draft rule circulating within the
administration would leave a much broader range of waters and wetlands
outside the strictures of the Clean Water Act.

Government officials declined to comment on the draft rule until it becomes
a public proposal.

If implemented, the change would represent one of the most consequential of
the actions the Bush administration has taken to ease environmental
regulations.

"It would dramatically cut back the scope of Clean Water Act jurisdiction,"
said the official who provided the document on the condition that neither he
nor his agency be identified. "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."

Julie Sibbing, a wetlands policy expert at 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. Up to
80% to 90% of streams in the Southwest would not fall under the Clean Water
Act if this rule were to go forward."

Examples of areas in California that could lose protection, according to a
state official who asked not to be named, are the Tujunga Wash in the
northeast San Fernando Valley and San Francisco wetlands that are diked and
cut off from the bay. The same fate might await headwater streams of the
Klamath, Eel and Salmon rivers on the north coast, important spawning
grounds for salmon, including the endangered Coho.

In January, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of
Engineers announced that they were considering rewriting the regulations
that establish what wetlands and streams are included in definitions of
waters of the United States, and thereby protected by a variety of Clean
Water Act regulations. The EPA is responsible for enforcing the Clean Water
Act; the corps issues permits for filling waters and streams.

In comments on the agencies' plan, states almost unanimously urged the
federal government to retain a broad definition of waters of the United
States.

"As with many other states, California will not be able to comprehensively
replicate the corps' regulatory role in the foreseeable future because of
its current budget crisis," the California EPA said in its comments on a
rule change. "The entirely foreseeable result would be dramatic impacts to
the potentially affected waters."

State water quality officials and conservationists said the wetlands and
streams that would lose protection under a rule change are essential to
maintaining the health of the larger rivers and lakes that would still be
protected by the law. Wetlands filter pollutants and retain water after
rainfalls to lessen flooding. Ephemeral streams reduce flooding. Both
provide healthy habitats for fish, birds and other wildlife. The government
received more than 130,000 comments about its proposal to rewrite the rules,
and EPA and White House officials said the government had not yet decided
whether to follow through with a new rule.

The draft revision of the rule defining waters of the United States was
prepared by officials at the Army Corps of Engineers and Justice Department,
according to the official who provided the document. Copies of the document
were circulated to officials at other agencies in recent weeks, the official
said. Corps spokeswoman Cynthia Smith said there would be no comment on a
leaked draft. Justice Department officials also refused to comment.

James Connaughton, chairman of the White House Council on Environmental
Quality, which coordinates multi-agency policymaking, said he had not seen
the draft. He stressed that the EPA would have the lead part in rewriting
the rule, although the corps would also have a significant role.

Conservation, hunting and fishing organizations that saw the draft
criticized it as a major rollback.

"This is a worst-case scenario," said Dr. Alan Wentz, Ducks Unlimited's
senior group manager for conservation. "It represents a radical change of
direction from 30 years of Clean Water Act implementation and judicial
interpretation, and if this becomes the corps' interpretation of the law, it
will create irreparable harm to those wetlands of greatest value to
waterfowl, such as the prairie potholes of the northern Great Plains."

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1106-05.htm

--
A pattern of deception

A hard truth appears to have escaped the notice of the public and received
scant attention from the media: Bush is the first president in American
history to use deceptive propaganda as his main means of communications in
selling his policies. His pattern of deception continues unabated and in
direct conflict with the notion of the public's informed consent that is
central to American democracy.

Walter Williams is professor emeritus at the University of Washington's
Evans School of Public Affairs.

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/opinion/6378746.htm

Published on Thursday, November 6, 2003 by the Los Angeles Times

Going Backwards

Rule Drafted That Would Dilute the Clean Water Act

by Elizabeth Shogren

WASHINGTON - Bush administration officials have drafted a rule that would
significantly narrow the scope of the Clean Water Act, stripping many
wetlands and streams of federal pollution controls and making them available
to being filled for commercial development....