Looking into the future the Pelican feeding its young from a self-induced wound in its own
breast (as depicted, mysteriously, on the state flag of Louisiana) is accepted as an
appropriate symbol of both self-sacrifice and rebirth. Through his selfless efforts, man is
raised from the slavery of ignorance to the condition of freedom conferred by wisdom.
Given the current state of affairs in Louisiana, one hopes that the understanding of t he Pelican
as a symbol shall point the way towards a new consciousness of ourselves as a whole, and lead us
to face our futures with strength, grace, wisdom and faith, to learn from our mistakes and carry
our successes and zest for living to future generations.
|
Bush-Whacking the Environment Part 2:
Stop Bush's War Against Nature!
The Worth of Water
Commentary from the Gambit Weekly – New Orleans, LA
As the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) threatens to scale back the federal law that protects our nation’s waters, we are reminded of a Scottish proverb: “We’ll never know the worth of water ‘til the well runs dry.” In this case, we may not know the value of our “Sportsman Paradise” until it is almost gone – thanks to proposed rollbacks of the 30-year-old Clean Water Act. In January, the EPA rewrote parts of the Clean Water Act on orders from the Bush Administration. That action came in response from a 2001 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that questioned whether the act was designed to protect “isolated” or “non-navigable” waterways. The High Court’s ruling didn’t specify what qualifies a wetland for federal protection, though, and the Bush Administration jumped at the chance to provide its own interpretation.
The EPA’s new rules would cease to protect “non-navigable” waters and wetlands – those not connected to another waterway on the surface. By the EPA’s own estimation, this change would remove about 20 percent of the nations wetlands from federal protection. Critics call that figure conservative.
According to the National Association of State Wetlands Managers, Louisiana would be among the states most dramatically affected by the proposals. So-called “isolated” wetlands serve as a valuable line of defense for Louisiana in both flooding and erosion control. They provide habitat for wildlife and filter pollution before it enters larger bodies of water. For these reasons, national organizations from Ducks Unlimited to the Sierra Club have opposed the changes.
In a letter to the EPA, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Secretary James Jenkins Jr. expressed dismay that the act would no longer protect the small, isolated water bodies favored by migrating ducks and geese. “Louisiana is the most important water fowl wintering area in the U.S.,” he wrote. Jenkins joined officials from dozens of states – many with Republican governors – in opposing the EPA’s changes. He noted that waterways that may not be connected with surface water are usually “hydro logically connected,” or linked via groundwater. An excess of pollution in these wetlands would naturally seep into irrigation ponds, reservoirs, drinking water, wells, swamps, bayous, lakes, rivers – and ultimately the ocean. Plus, as we’ve seen during spring floods and other high water events, weather variations can rapidly transform “isolated” marshes and ponds into a broad network of water bodies connected through flooded surface waters.
Jenkins expressed particular concern about the “prairie potholes” slated to be stricken from the Clean Water Act. These small ponds and marshes caused by spring downpours and flooding sustain the nation’s migratory birds, providing nesting areas and food sources. “America’s waterfowl resources are dependent on protection of small, spatially isolated wetlands such as those found in the prairie pothole region,” Jenkins argued in his letter.
These proposed new EPA regulations appear to be based not on science, but on the interests of developers eager to drain wetlands. As Jenkins noted, many of the “isolated” wetlands that would lose federal protection “are privately owned and would be quickly converted to other uses.
Ironically, this “business-friendly” policy would have a potentially devastating effect on two of Louisiana’s largest industries: tourism and fisheries. According to the Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, 104,000 people hunted ducks and geese during the 2000-01 season, and they spent more than 150 million on hunting-related goods and services during that time. Wetlands loss would also hurt Louisiana’s fishing industry, the largest in the lower 48 states.
Last week, Louisiana officials presented a U.S. Geological Surveys (USGS) study to President Bush’s environmental advisor. Jim Connaughton, illustrating that Louisiana’s coastline is disappearing more rapidly than anyone had previously estimated. About 1,900 square miles had eroded between 1932 and 2000, USGS says. The state has spent over 4 million in the past decade to combat coastal erosion. To remove wetlands protection at this stage would counter every effort that has been made to slow the disappearance of Louisiana’s coast.
Both chambers of Congress have launched attempts to impede the EPA proposals. Sen. Russell D. Feingold, D-Wis., sponsored SB 473 (the “Clean Water Authority Restoration Act”), which would replace the term “navigable waters” in the Clean Water Act with “waters of the United States.” The bill awaits action by the Committee on Environmental and Public Works. An identical bill, HR 962, was introduced in the House.
We urge Louisiana’s congressional delegation, particularly Sens. Mary Landrieu and John Breaux, to back this important legislation, and we encourage everyone concerned about wetlands protection to contact his or her representatives in Congress to advocate the Clean Water Authority Restoration Act. The value of public uproar has already been proven at the EPA. In 2001, then-EPA administrator Christie Todd Whitman attempted to increase the allowable levels of arsenic in drinking water. Public outcry prevailed. Whitman resigned last and, it is unknown to what extent her replacement (who had not been named at press time) will fight to support the proposed changes. We only hope enough people truly realize the worth of our water – before the well runs dry.
_________________________________________________________________________
EPA Cuts Climate Change from Report
By Andrew C. Revkin with Katharine Q. Seelye
© 2003, The New York Times
Thursday, June 19, 2003
Washington
Section deleted after Whitehouse editing
The Environmental Protection Agency is preparing to publish a draft report next week on the state of the environment, but after heavy editing by the White House; a long section describing risks from rising global temperatures has been whittled to a few noncommittal paragraphs.
The report, commissioned in 2001 by the agency’s administrator, Christie Whitman, was aimed at providing the first comprehensive review of what is known about various environmental problems, where gaps in understanding exist and how to fill them.
Agency officials said it is tentatively scheduled to be released early next week, before Whitman steps down on June 27, ending a troubled time in office that often put her at odds with President Bush.
The draft of the climate section, with changes sought by the White House, was given to the New York Times on Wednesday by a former EPA official, along with earlier drafts and an internal memo in which some agency officials protested the changes. Two agency officials confirmed the nature of the documents.
The editing eliminated references to many studies concluding that recent warming is at least partly caused by rising concentrations of smokestack and tailpipe emissions and could threaten health and ecosystems.
Among the deletions were references to the conclusions of a 2001 report of the National Research Council that the White House had commissioned and that President Bush had endorsed in speeches that year.
White House officials also deleted a reference to a widely cited 1999 study showing that global temperatures had spiked sharply in the past decade compared with levels over the past 1,000 years; in its place administration officials added a reference to a new study, partly financed by the American Petroleum Institute that questioned that conclusion.
In the end, EPA staff members, after discussions with administration officials, said they decided to delete the entire discussion, including material inserted by the White House, to avoid criticism that they were selectively filtering science to suit policy.
But private environmental groups sharply criticized the changes. “Political staff are becoming increasingly bold in forcing agency officials to endorse junk science,” said Jeremy Symons, a climate policy expert at the National Wildlife Federation. “This is like the White House directing the secretary of labor to alter unemployment data to paint a rosy economic picture.
Uncertainty Stressed
Drafts of the report have been circulating for many months, but a particularly heavy round of rewriting and cutting by White House officials in late April caused an eruption of protest among EPA officials working on the report.
An April 29 “issue paper” circulated among EPA staff members said that after the changes made by White House officials, the section on climate “no longer accurately represents scientific consensus on climate change.”
An “option paper” circulated at the same time said the “easiest” course would be to accept the White House revisions, but that to do so would taint the agency, because EPA will take responsibility and severe criticism from the science and environmental communities for poorly representing the science.
The changes were mainly made by the White House Council on Environmental Quality, although the Office of Management and Budget was also involved, several EPA officials said.
__________________________________________________________________________
Out of State Plants Poison fish
by James A. Kyle
New Orleans
In Mercury raining down on LA., May 30, state health officer Jimmy Guidry said, We don’t want to discourage the consumption of fish. However, I find having “twice the level of mercury allowed” in our rainwater more than discouraging. I find it downright frightening.
Eating seafood may become a dangerous guessing game if we do not curtail the mercury contamination in fish. It’s a game that I would not be willing to play. However, Bush’s so-called “Clear Skies” Act is betting the rest of Louisiana will.
The president’s plan will allow plants to emit 520 percent more mercury until 2018 and 300 percent more after 2018 than the current Clean Air Act.
As the Wildlife Federation report pointed out, coal burning power plants, many located in other states are to blame. Louisiana needs to take a strong stance of opposition to Clear Skies.
