I am in favor of a Federal Wetlands Act to protect the small isolated wetlands (as well as other wetlands) in the PPR region as referenced in Winkelman's article. Such wetland protection should not be left to court or administrative interpretation of the Clean Water Act ----- we need clear, easy to understand legislation.
According to sources from DU, I thought that we were over this hurdle with the Bush administration and its aleeged lack of support for the current provisions of the Clean Water Act and its historical protection of these wetlands as interpreteted by the federal governmental agencies involved in enforcement. What about it Chad Manlove? What is the scoop? Did DU deliver the goods or not?
The Environment
-
Po Monkey Lounger
- Duck South Addict
- Posts: 5975
- Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2001 12:01 am
- Location: Sharby Creek
-
Chad Manlove
- Veteran
- Posts: 450
- Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2003 9:06 am
- Location: Madison, MS
This was a press release from the EPA (December...i think)
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) today reiterated the Administration's commitment to the goal of "no net loss" of wetlands in the United States. EPA and the Corps announced that they would not issue a new rule on federal regulatory jurisdiction over isolated wetlands.
"Today we are reaffirming and bolstering protections for wetlands, which are vital for water quality, the health of our streams and wildlife habitat," said EPA Administrator Mike Leavitt.
Assistant Secretary of the Army John Paul Woodley Jr. added, "We will continue our efforts to ensure that the Corps' regulatory program is as effective, efficient and responsive as it can be."
The Supreme Court's 2001 decision in the case of Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (commonly referred to as to "SWANCC") overturned the Corps' assertion of federal jurisdiction over certain isolated wetlands based on the presence of migratory birds. EPA and the Corps responded by issuing revised guidance to their field offices. At the same time, the Agencies reaffirmed federal jurisdiction over the majority of wetlands not impacted by the decision.
After soliciting public comment to determine if further regulatory clarification was needed, the EPA and the Corps have decided to preserve the federal government's authority to protect our wetlands. The agencies will continue to monitor implementation of this important program to ensure its effectiveness.
The Administration is currently implementing dozens of programs to protect and restore millions of acres of our Nation's wetlands. These include the Food Security Act's "Swampbuster" requirements and the Wetlands Reserve Program, both under the authority of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. EPA programs include its "Five-Star Restoration" grant program, the EPA wetlands grants programs and the National Estuary Program. Other federal programs include: the Fish and Wildlife Service's "Partners in Wildlife" program, the National Marine Fisheries Service's Coastal Wetlands Restoration Program and the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission, composed of the Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture, the Administrator of EPA, and Members of Congress.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) today reiterated the Administration's commitment to the goal of "no net loss" of wetlands in the United States. EPA and the Corps announced that they would not issue a new rule on federal regulatory jurisdiction over isolated wetlands.
"Today we are reaffirming and bolstering protections for wetlands, which are vital for water quality, the health of our streams and wildlife habitat," said EPA Administrator Mike Leavitt.
Assistant Secretary of the Army John Paul Woodley Jr. added, "We will continue our efforts to ensure that the Corps' regulatory program is as effective, efficient and responsive as it can be."
The Supreme Court's 2001 decision in the case of Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (commonly referred to as to "SWANCC") overturned the Corps' assertion of federal jurisdiction over certain isolated wetlands based on the presence of migratory birds. EPA and the Corps responded by issuing revised guidance to their field offices. At the same time, the Agencies reaffirmed federal jurisdiction over the majority of wetlands not impacted by the decision.
After soliciting public comment to determine if further regulatory clarification was needed, the EPA and the Corps have decided to preserve the federal government's authority to protect our wetlands. The agencies will continue to monitor implementation of this important program to ensure its effectiveness.
The Administration is currently implementing dozens of programs to protect and restore millions of acres of our Nation's wetlands. These include the Food Security Act's "Swampbuster" requirements and the Wetlands Reserve Program, both under the authority of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. EPA programs include its "Five-Star Restoration" grant program, the EPA wetlands grants programs and the National Estuary Program. Other federal programs include: the Fish and Wildlife Service's "Partners in Wildlife" program, the National Marine Fisheries Service's Coastal Wetlands Restoration Program and the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission, composed of the Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture, the Administrator of EPA, and Members of Congress.
Chad Manlove
Waterfowl Biologist
Ducks Unlimited, Inc.
Waterfowl Biologist
Ducks Unlimited, Inc.
-
Chad Manlove
- Veteran
- Posts: 450
- Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2003 9:06 am
- Location: Madison, MS
DU Press Release one week prior to the EPA release.....
DU President Discusses Wetlands Conservation with President Bush
Washington, D.C., December 12, 2003 - Ducks Unlimited President, John Tomke met with President George Bush and other leaders from the conservation community in the west wing of the White House today to discuss major issues of interest to the wildlife conservation community. Also joining the meeting, held in both the Roosevelt Room and the Oval Office, were Secretary of Interior Gale Norton, Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman and Council on Environmental Quality Chairman, Jim Connaughton.
Seated next to the President during the meeting, Tomke raised the importance of protecting isolated wetlands to ensure healthy waterfowl and other wildlife populations, and emphasized it as a critical issue to hunter-conservationists and outdoor enthusiasts across the United States. Tomke's concern arises from a 2001 Supreme Court decision that, if broadly interpreted, could eliminate long-standing protection of wetlands and small bodies of water under the Clean Water Act.
During the meeting, Tomke also remarked that in recent months more than 20,000 letters have been sent to the White House and other key decision makers in Washington D.C. by DU members and supporters on this issue. "The strong response is a true testament of the nationwide interest in the federal protection of isolated wetlands under the Clean Water Act," Tomke stated. Depending on how this decision is interpreted and acted upon, up to 96 percent of the wetlands in the prairie pothole region, which is the primary waterfowl breeding area in the U.S., could lose protection. For more information on this issue, log on to http://www.ducks.org/news/PDF/SWANCCFactSheet.pdf.
In the hour-long meeting President Bush pointedly and repeatedly stated his support for wetlands protection, his commitment to no-net-loss of wetlands. He mentioned his own enthusiasm for hunting, and fishing along the gulf coast of the U.S. Each year, the Louisiana Gulf Coast can winter more than fourteen million ducks and two million geese, making it among DU's highest conservation priorities. Unfortunately, due to a combination of man-made and natural causes, the Louisiana Gulf Coast is losing 25 to 35 square miles of coastal habitat each year, which is the equivalent of an area the size of a football field every 30 minutes.
The North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA) and it's success, wise energy development on federal lands and hunter/angler access to National Wildlife Refuge lands were among the other issues discussed during the meeting.
This is the second time John Tomke has met with President Bush during his presidency.
DU President Discusses Wetlands Conservation with President Bush
Washington, D.C., December 12, 2003 - Ducks Unlimited President, John Tomke met with President George Bush and other leaders from the conservation community in the west wing of the White House today to discuss major issues of interest to the wildlife conservation community. Also joining the meeting, held in both the Roosevelt Room and the Oval Office, were Secretary of Interior Gale Norton, Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman and Council on Environmental Quality Chairman, Jim Connaughton.
Seated next to the President during the meeting, Tomke raised the importance of protecting isolated wetlands to ensure healthy waterfowl and other wildlife populations, and emphasized it as a critical issue to hunter-conservationists and outdoor enthusiasts across the United States. Tomke's concern arises from a 2001 Supreme Court decision that, if broadly interpreted, could eliminate long-standing protection of wetlands and small bodies of water under the Clean Water Act.
During the meeting, Tomke also remarked that in recent months more than 20,000 letters have been sent to the White House and other key decision makers in Washington D.C. by DU members and supporters on this issue. "The strong response is a true testament of the nationwide interest in the federal protection of isolated wetlands under the Clean Water Act," Tomke stated. Depending on how this decision is interpreted and acted upon, up to 96 percent of the wetlands in the prairie pothole region, which is the primary waterfowl breeding area in the U.S., could lose protection. For more information on this issue, log on to http://www.ducks.org/news/PDF/SWANCCFactSheet.pdf.
In the hour-long meeting President Bush pointedly and repeatedly stated his support for wetlands protection, his commitment to no-net-loss of wetlands. He mentioned his own enthusiasm for hunting, and fishing along the gulf coast of the U.S. Each year, the Louisiana Gulf Coast can winter more than fourteen million ducks and two million geese, making it among DU's highest conservation priorities. Unfortunately, due to a combination of man-made and natural causes, the Louisiana Gulf Coast is losing 25 to 35 square miles of coastal habitat each year, which is the equivalent of an area the size of a football field every 30 minutes.
The North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA) and it's success, wise energy development on federal lands and hunter/angler access to National Wildlife Refuge lands were among the other issues discussed during the meeting.
This is the second time John Tomke has met with President Bush during his presidency.
Chad Manlove
Waterfowl Biologist
Ducks Unlimited, Inc.
Waterfowl Biologist
Ducks Unlimited, Inc.
-
Po Monkey Lounger
- Duck South Addict
- Posts: 5975
- Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2001 12:01 am
- Location: Sharby Creek
-
BigCountry
- Veteran
- Posts: 115
- Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2003 9:57 pm
- Location: Cleveland
I've got one thing to say. Most of the enviromental regulations are set forth by the federal gov't not the state. so if texas had the worst air in america during Bush's term as governor then i think the blame could potential ly in the watchful hands of the Clinton administration.
maybe next year will be better
Yay!!! Bush decided that he would not have his administration re-write federal regulations regarding policies concerning the removal of isolated wetlands in light of the SWANCC decision. Nevermind that it took a SERIOUS wake up call from concerned Americans, most importantly, sportsmen and the environmentalists everybody loves to hate. You really think Bush had a change of heart? Maybe he just heard the voice of angry duck hunters who typically cast their vote in a CONSERVATIVE manner. Know this: before the Teddy Roosevelt Coalition or whatever it was called (made up of several organizations, such as DU that wanted the President to realize what he was doing) intervened, it was gonna be full speed ahead. Drain and plow those potholes fellas. After all, THE PRESENCE OF MIGRATORY BIRDS DOES NOT HAVE AN EFFECT ON WHETHER OR NOT A WETLAND FALLS UNDER THE PROTECTION OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT. Congressional intention or not, based on this past season, I can't wait to hear the b****ing and moaning about crappy duck seasons once all the farmers in the Dakotas decide to celebrate the SWANCC decision by draining every pothole on their farm.
It's also important to know that even though Bush has decided (for now) that his administration won't reorganize policy on isolated wetlands, they're still practically naked in terms of protection. After all, the court decision still stands. Now the precedence is there, and when Farmer Brown decides he wants to plant his corn in straight lines, instead of zigging and zagging around some pothole that happens to have X number of breeding mallards on it, the Clean Water Act can no longer stop him from draining and plowing the sucker. Only thing that can stop him is Swampbuster.
Ahh, Swampbuster. Swampbuster is the LAST line of defense for small isolated wetlands, i.e. the prarie potholes. And boys, it ain't that strong. It can't prevent said farmer from draining his wetlands. It only says that if he's getting any government subsidies for his crops, he forfeits those subsidies by destroying wetlands. So he could decide that if he destroys all the wetlands on his property, he'll increase his profits enough that he no longer needs government subsidies. Swampbuster can't do a thing to stop him.
And then there's the fact that soybeans have recently been placed on the commodity list for government subsidies. Hell, beans'll grow anywhere if you play with the genetics enough. So all that dry land up there that was previously not suited too well for agriculture, other than beef, now has a new option. Now Farmer Green gets a little envious about the dough that his cousin Farmer Brown is throwing around, so he decides to be a bean farmer. Destroys the wetlands that used to co-exist with his beef operation (which isn't on the commodity list) and plants beans. Deals with the market for a year or two, then applies for subsidies. He gets them, but Swampbuster says he can't destroy wetlands. Oops, too late. He's got way more economic incentive to lose the cattle operation and plant beans. And he definitely got incentive not to enroll his lands in CRP or WRP because those payments aren't even gonna touch what he can get for going with the soybeans.
Only way around this SWANCC crap is for Congress to try again. If they pass a new law, protecting isolated wetlands, Farmers Brown and Green have to take the law to court AGAIN, hoping that lightning will strike twice, which it could very easily do. OR, hopefully, if the Clean Water Act gets taken to court in the jurisdiction that holds the prarie potholes, that federal court could decide that the court that ruled in SWANCC got it wrong and create a circuit split. However, chances aren't too good under this method. As previously noted, the precedence has been set. Even though the Dakota jurisdiction, by law, does not have to follow the ruling of the federal court in Illinois that issued SWANCC, that decision is still good secondary authority. Even though it's not mandatory, SWANCC is still the primary precedent out there. And then you have to consider the region. Isolated wetlands would have a much better shot of overruling SWANCC in a jurisdiction outside of the Dakotas. Maybe a more *gasp* liberal jurisdiction would be more likely to leave the wetlands protection intact. But the primary concern of Dakotans is agriculture. Less wetlands equals more land tilled equals more money.
If Bush is serious about his no net loss of wetlands agenda, I want to see him put his money where his mouth is and push a bill through Congress that protects all wetlands once again. But it won't happen. Unfortunately, the phrase "no net loss of wetlands" screams mitigation, but it's hard to mitigate prarie potholes when the vast majority of them are under the private control of Brown and Green. (This is where I would usually insert the importance of DU and its initiatives that SAVE HABITAT, i.e. work with private landowners about not plowing through potholes, but you can't make a horse that's been lead to water drink.)
mottlet
It's also important to know that even though Bush has decided (for now) that his administration won't reorganize policy on isolated wetlands, they're still practically naked in terms of protection. After all, the court decision still stands. Now the precedence is there, and when Farmer Brown decides he wants to plant his corn in straight lines, instead of zigging and zagging around some pothole that happens to have X number of breeding mallards on it, the Clean Water Act can no longer stop him from draining and plowing the sucker. Only thing that can stop him is Swampbuster.
Ahh, Swampbuster. Swampbuster is the LAST line of defense for small isolated wetlands, i.e. the prarie potholes. And boys, it ain't that strong. It can't prevent said farmer from draining his wetlands. It only says that if he's getting any government subsidies for his crops, he forfeits those subsidies by destroying wetlands. So he could decide that if he destroys all the wetlands on his property, he'll increase his profits enough that he no longer needs government subsidies. Swampbuster can't do a thing to stop him.
And then there's the fact that soybeans have recently been placed on the commodity list for government subsidies. Hell, beans'll grow anywhere if you play with the genetics enough. So all that dry land up there that was previously not suited too well for agriculture, other than beef, now has a new option. Now Farmer Green gets a little envious about the dough that his cousin Farmer Brown is throwing around, so he decides to be a bean farmer. Destroys the wetlands that used to co-exist with his beef operation (which isn't on the commodity list) and plants beans. Deals with the market for a year or two, then applies for subsidies. He gets them, but Swampbuster says he can't destroy wetlands. Oops, too late. He's got way more economic incentive to lose the cattle operation and plant beans. And he definitely got incentive not to enroll his lands in CRP or WRP because those payments aren't even gonna touch what he can get for going with the soybeans.
Only way around this SWANCC crap is for Congress to try again. If they pass a new law, protecting isolated wetlands, Farmers Brown and Green have to take the law to court AGAIN, hoping that lightning will strike twice, which it could very easily do. OR, hopefully, if the Clean Water Act gets taken to court in the jurisdiction that holds the prarie potholes, that federal court could decide that the court that ruled in SWANCC got it wrong and create a circuit split. However, chances aren't too good under this method. As previously noted, the precedence has been set. Even though the Dakota jurisdiction, by law, does not have to follow the ruling of the federal court in Illinois that issued SWANCC, that decision is still good secondary authority. Even though it's not mandatory, SWANCC is still the primary precedent out there. And then you have to consider the region. Isolated wetlands would have a much better shot of overruling SWANCC in a jurisdiction outside of the Dakotas. Maybe a more *gasp* liberal jurisdiction would be more likely to leave the wetlands protection intact. But the primary concern of Dakotans is agriculture. Less wetlands equals more land tilled equals more money.
If Bush is serious about his no net loss of wetlands agenda, I want to see him put his money where his mouth is and push a bill through Congress that protects all wetlands once again. But it won't happen. Unfortunately, the phrase "no net loss of wetlands" screams mitigation, but it's hard to mitigate prarie potholes when the vast majority of them are under the private control of Brown and Green. (This is where I would usually insert the importance of DU and its initiatives that SAVE HABITAT, i.e. work with private landowners about not plowing through potholes, but you can't make a horse that's been lead to water drink.)
mottlet
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 5 guests