CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › What's this all about?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

What's this all about?

post #1 of 8
4/22/02 at 1:39pm
Thread Starter 
By the way, happy Earth day. Go work on your tans or something.

Quote:
March 25, 2002

The Honorable George W. Bush
President of the United States
The White House
Washington, DC 20500-0500

Dear Mr. President:

We write in strong opposition to a proposed rule change now under consideration by the Army Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency that would change a Clean Water Act regulation to allow wastes to be used as "fill" material in streams, wetlands and other waters. We urge you to direct these agencies to reconsider this ill-advised and dangerous rulemaking and instead pursue policies that will protect, not threaten, our nation's precious water resources.

The Army Corps of Engineers' current definition of "fill" material explicitly excludes waste material, meaning the Corps cannot legally issue Clean Water Act 404 permits for waste disposal activities. The proposed rule change would delete this waste exemption from the definition to allow the Corps to issue permits to fill waters of the Unites States with all kinds of wastes, including mountaintop removal mining waste.

In fact, this rule change appears to be particularly designed to legalize the practice of mountaintop removal mining, where coal companies blast the tops off of mountains and the huge volumes of waste that are generated are dumped into nearby valleys, burying miles of streams and killing all associated aquatic life. While any effort to grant the Army Corps of Engineers the authority to issue permits for this destructive practice is indefensible enough, it is equally alarming that this proposal would reach even further, opening waters across the United States to being filled and destroyed by many types of waste, including other kinds of mining wastes.

Allowing coal mining spoil and other types of waste material to be dumped in lakes, rivers, streams and wetlands is contrary to the central goal of the Clean Water Act: preserving physical, chemical and biological integrity of the nation's waters. This rulemaking, if carried forward, would represent a major weakening of current law.

The Clinton administration proposed changing the definition of "fill" in April 2000. At that time, many of us expressed our vigorous opposition to this rulemaking. Fortunately, the Clinton administration did not finalize the change in Clean Water Act regulations. We ask you to reconsider this proposal as well.

While there may be a need for some regulatory changes so that the Corps and EPA use consistent definitions of "fill" material, this should be accomplished by ensuring that both agencies' definitions explicitly exclude the use of wastes to fill our nation's waters, not, as is proposed, to weaken the Corps' regulations to sanction this long-prohibited practice.

The protection of the environment has long been and should remain a bipartisan priority. We appreciate that you and officials in your administration have stated support for policies to protect wetlands and other waters of the United States. Unfortunately, the proposed rule change in the definition of "fill" would be inconsistent with the goal of preserving water bodies and the life that they support. Therefore, we urge you to withdraw this rulemaking and maintain the current clean water regulations that prohibit the use of waste materials to fill waters of the United States.

Sincerely,

Christopher Shays, R-Conn.
James A. Leach, R-Ia.
Benjamin A. Gilman, R-NY
Constance A. Morella, R-MD
Sherwood L. Boehlert, R-NY
Sue W. Kelly, R-NY
Jim Ramstad, R-Mn.
Nancy L. Johnson, R-Conn.
Stephen Horn, R-Ca.
Wayne T. Gilchrest, R-Md.
Marge Roukema, R- NJ
Mark Foley, R-Fl.
Is this for real? It seems too stupid an idea to be real.
Reply
post #2 of 8
4/22/02 at 4:05pm
Quote:
Is this for real? It seems too stupid an idea to be real.
Why? Seems fairly reasonable to me.
Reply
post #3 of 8
4/22/02 at 4:35pm
Thread Starter 
Which? Smothering mountain streams with mountaintops, or expressing one's dissatisfaction with the idea?
Reply
post #4 of 8
4/22/02 at 6:10pm
You misread the letter my fine refrozen friend. here's the thesis:
Quote:
We write in strong opposition to a proposed rule change now under consideration by the Army Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency that would change a Clean Water Act regulation to allow wastes to be used as "fill" material in streams...
Strong opposition to a change that would allow wastes to be used as fill.

Hmmm...still seems reasonable to me.

Reply
post #5 of 8
4/22/02 at 8:54pm
Thread Starter 
Right. The opposition makes perfect sense. The proposed changes are what baffled me.

Anyway. Changes like that are what I would consider an administration working overtime. I wonder if that's the sort of thing Gore was talking about.
Reply
post #6 of 8
4/22/02 at 10:40pm
Quote:
The Clinton administration proposed changing the definition of "fill" in April 2000. At that time, many of us expressed our vigorous opposition to this rulemaking. Fortunately, the Clinton administration did not finalize the change in Clean Water Act regulations.
Well, well, well... look who was "working overtime."

And all the signatories for the letter are Republicans... will wonders never cease.
Reply
post #7 of 8
4/22/02 at 11:15pm
Thread Starter 
This isn't about one side being right and the other wrong. That these people opposed Clinton and Bush doing this shows the non-partisan nature of the issue.

What I don't get is this: if the last president kiboshed it, why is it even an issue now? I get the idea the proposed changers were the same both times, so the proper Presidential response would be, "We told you two years ago - no." End of story.
Reply
post #8 of 8
5/6/02 at 4:43pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
The Bush administration today finalized changes to Clean Water Act regulations that would for the first time in 25 years allow the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to permit waste to fill and destroy the nation’s waters. In an attempt to appease the coal mining industry and in a rush to avoid additional Congressional and public scrutiny, EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman signed the rule change.

"It says something when an administration takes an action like this late on a Friday -- that they hope no one sees it," said Joan Mulhern, senior legislative counsel for Earthjustice. "This is a ‘Friday Night Massacre’ for our nation's waters and it’s the biggest threat to our nation’s waters in decades, perhaps since the Clean Water Act passed 30 years ago. Allowing masses of industrial wastes to be dumped in streams, lakes, rivers, and wetlands is contrary to the very purpose of the Clean Water Act and represents a major weakening of current clean water law."

EPA’s press release states this will "enhance environmental protections" for waters. "Nothing could be further from the truth," said Mulhern. "Anyone who has ever seen what happens when a stream is buried under 900 feet of mining rubble would not conclude that this is a good thing for water quality. More than 1,000 miles of streams already have been destroyed in Appalachia by the coal companies that have been flouting the Clean Water Act for years while the EPA and the Corps looked the other way."

"Now that citizens have taken state and federal agencies to court to ensure our environmental laws are enforced, coal companies have sought -- and been granted -- legal relief from the Bush administration. Their lavish contributions to the Bush-Cheney campaign have just been paid back," Mulhern added.

In recent days, dozens of members of Congress have sent letters to President Bush highlighting their concerns about this. U.S. Senators James Jeffords (I-Vt.) and Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.) sent a letter on Wednesday to President Bush asking him to stop immediately his administration’s efforts to overturn this important Clean Water Act rule. The Environment and Public Works Committee Chair and the Wetlands Subcommittee Chair, respectively, expressed concern that the rule change would allow industries -- such as coal mining and hardrock mining companies -- to fill the nation’s waters with waste material.

"The proposed rule would jeopardize the health of the nation's streams, wetlands, lakes, rivers and other waters," the Senators' letter states. "We ask that your administration not take any further action to finalize this rulemaking, including sending it to the Office and Management and Budget for review, until the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee has had an opportunity to review the effects that this rulemaking will have on the health of our nation's waterways."

"It is outrageous that the EPA ignored this request from the Senate committee that oversees the Clean Water Act and most EPA programs," said Mulhern.

On Wednesday, a bipartisan group of 57 members of the House of Representatives, led by Frank Pallone (D-NJ), sent a letter to Administrator Whitman conveying their "strong opposition" to the proposed rule. "This rule change is a clear attempt to legalize the destructive practice of mountaintop removal coal mining, where coal companies literally blow the tops off of mountains and dump the waste into nearby valleys and streams," stated the House letter.

In March, a dozen senior House Republicans led by Representative Chris Shays (R-Conn.) also wrote to President Bush, urging him to reconsider "this ill-advised and dangerous rulemaking" to allow waste disposal in waters.

"The bipartisan opposition to this waste dumping rule has been significant and growing as Senators and Representatives have learned about the threat it poses to waters in their districts," said Mulhern. "While this rule is being motivated by the administration’s desire to legalize the illegal waste dumping practices of the coal industry, its effects will be nationwide. Every stream, wetland, river, and lake in the country will be placed at risk of becoming a dumping ground for mining waste, construction debris, even garbage."

Copies of the Senate and House letters are available by contacting Ken Goldman.

Published: May 06 2002
I wonder if USA Today will run a poll about this. Doubt it.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › What's this all about?