Dirty Trick on Waterways
___________________
EDITORIAL
The Los Angeles Times
December 8, 2003
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.
latimes.com |
