Sent out by John Pitlo of the IA Dept. of Natural Resources. Take the time to read through this one everyone. Many of our streams and rivers have made enormous improvements in water quality due to federal protection against pollution, habitat detruction, etc. That protection is coming under fire and we may lose much of what has been accomplished!
OK, For those who may think this “Clean Water Act” issue is just the chicken little ramblings of the liberal special interest groups, and “Anti’s”, you may wish to read this letter.
http://www.fisheries.org/AFS-CWAletter.shtml
(18 December 2002)
The Honorable Christine Todd Whitman
Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Ariel Rios Building, Room 3000
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
The Honorable George Dunlop
Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works
108 Army Pentagon
Washington, DC 20310
The Honorable James L. Connaughton
Chairman, White House Council on Environmental Quality
730 Jackson Place, N.W.
Washington, DC 20503
Dear Administrator Whitman, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary Dunlop, and Chairman Connaughton:
I am writing on behalf of the American Fisheries Society (AFS), the oldest and largest (9,000+ members) professional society representing fisheries scientists and managers. AFS is concerned about the Administration’s decision to draft new regulations under the Clean Water Act (CWA), redefining the waterways covered by the Act. Specifically, the new rulemaking process would determine whether certain waters, including tributaries, intermittent and ephemeral streams, and wetlands adjacent thereto, and other “isolated” wetlands, should remain under the jurisdiction of the CWA.
We urge the Administration not to proceed with rulemaking that would limit the scope of the Clean Water Act. Isolated wetlands, ephemeral streams, and tributaries are an integral part of our nation’s watersheds, and thus affect the health of all waters of the United States. Because non-navigable tributaries and their adjacent wetlands drain into larger bodies of water and groundwater sources, their degradation can negatively affect traditional navigable waters. Removing protections for non-navigable tributaries of navigable waters would also jeopardize many important wetlands that comprise significant fish and wildlife habitat, supporting a diversity of flora and fauna, in addition to providing enhanced water quality, flood attenuation, and groundwater recharge.
Crafting recovery plans for various fish species listed under the Endangered Species Act, e.g., Pacific salmon, is already complicated by the complex life history and the variations in life history (even within a single species) that finds juveniles of many species occupying small, often intermittent, streams during their critical fresh water rearing period. Without some consistent rules governing such habitats, especially as these tributaries cross state lines, the task will be made increasingly difficult. Many fish species including salmon are truly creatures of the watershed. Failure to consider rules governing all aquatic features and their relationship to aquatic processes – and thus to watershed integrity – does not bode well for recovery.
We have seen remarkable recovery in USA waters following passage of the CWA; and there is growing interest on the part of USEPA, States, Tribes, and Watershed Councils to better monitor, assess, report, and restore our waters. Removing CWA protections from some subset of our waters will set back these efforts substantially. It will further exaggerate existing discrepancies and inadequacies among state programs, instead of encouraging higher standards for all. The lack on inter-state coordination would militate against efficient and effective management strategies, would prompt conflict between downstream and upstream states, and would hurt state economies. In addition, it will turn us back to pre-CWA days when there were 50 or more differing and inconsistent standards across the USA, creating enormous financial subsidies and penalties for discharging municipalities, industries, and land uses.
Reducing federal jurisdiction over waterways of the U.S. would leave protections to state water programs, which, in many cases, are limited in regard to “isolated” wetlands, ephemeral and intermittent streams, and tributaries. In the past, states relied on the federal regulations in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and consequently developed no laws of their own to protect these wetlands and waterways. If the scope of the CWA is limited through the new rulemaking process, there will be few state regulations in place to prevent pollution and loss of wetlands from agriculture, commercial and residential development, resource extraction, and other activities.
The Administration based the need for a new rule-making process on the court case Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County vs. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (SWANCC). The Supreme Court’s decision in this case narrowed the Clean Water Act’s wetland protections by invalidating the use of the “migratory bird rule” as a basis for the Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency to assert CWA authority over isolated, intra-state non-navigable waters. AFS agrees that guidance is required for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to interpret and implement the SWANCC decision, but we believe that reducing CWA jurisdiction is unjustified.
AFS urges EPA and the Corps to communicate with state natural resource and regulatory agencies before moving forward with the new rule-making process. We need strong policy guidance on both regulatory and non-regulatory ways of protecting isolated wetlands and non-navigable tributaries, not a reduction in the strength and scope of the CWA.
Thank you for considering the comments of AFS, representing over 9,000 professional fishery scientists and managers.
Sincerely,
Gus Rassam, Executive Director, American Fisheries Society
CC: Senate Committees on Agricultural Nutrition and Forestry; Commerce, Science and Transportation; Energy and Natural Resources; Environment and Public Works. House Committees on Agriculture; Energy and Commerce; Resources; and Science.
——————
OK, For those who may think this “Clean Water Act” issue is just the chicken little ramblings of the liberal special interest groups, and “Anti’s”, you may wish to read this letter.
http://www.fisheries.org/AFS-CWAletter.shtml
(18 December 2002)
The Honorable Christine Todd Whitman
Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Ariel Rios Building, Room 3000
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
The Honorable George Dunlop
Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works
108 Army Pentagon
Washington, DC 20310
The Honorable James L. Connaughton
Chairman, White House Council on Environmental Quality
730 Jackson Place, N.W.
Washington, DC 20503
Dear Administrator Whitman, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary Dunlop, and Chairman Connaughton:
I am writing on behalf of the American Fisheries Society (AFS), the oldest and largest (9,000+ members) professional society representing fisheries scientists and managers. AFS is concerned about the Administration’s decision to draft new regulations under the Clean Water Act (CWA), redefining the waterways covered by the Act. Specifically, the new rulemaking process would determine whether certain waters, including tributaries, intermittent and ephemeral streams, and wetlands adjacent thereto, and other “isolated” wetlands, should remain under the jurisdiction of the CWA.
We urge the Administration not to proceed with rulemaking that would limit the scope of the Clean Water Act. Isolated wetlands, ephemeral streams, and tributaries are an integral part of our nation’s watersheds, and thus affect the health of all waters of the United States. Because non-navigable tributaries and their adjacent wetlands drain into larger bodies of water and groundwater sources, their degradation can negatively affect traditional navigable waters. Removing protections for non-navigable tributaries of navigable waters would also jeopardize many important wetlands that comprise significant fish and wildlife habitat, supporting a diversity of flora and fauna, in addition to providing enhanced water quality, flood attenuation, and groundwater recharge.
Crafting recovery plans for various fish species listed under the Endangered Species Act, e.g., Pacific salmon, is already complicated by the complex life history and the variations in life history (even within a single species) that finds juveniles of many species occupying small, often intermittent, streams during their critical fresh water rearing period. Without some consistent rules governing such habitats, especially as these tributaries cross state lines, the task will be made increasingly difficult. Many fish species including salmon are truly creatures of the watershed. Failure to consider rules governing all aquatic features and their relationship to aquatic processes – and thus to watershed integrity – does not bode well for recovery.
We have seen remarkable recovery in USA waters following passage of the CWA; and there is growing interest on the part of USEPA, States, Tribes, and Watershed Councils to better monitor, assess, report, and restore our waters. Removing CWA protections from some subset of our waters will set back these efforts substantially. It will further exaggerate existing discrepancies and inadequacies among state programs, instead of encouraging higher standards for all. The lack on inter-state coordination would militate against efficient and effective management strategies, would prompt conflict between downstream and upstream states, and would hurt state economies. In addition, it will turn us back to pre-CWA days when there were 50 or more differing and inconsistent standards across the USA, creating enormous financial subsidies and penalties for discharging municipalities, industries, and land uses.
Reducing federal jurisdiction over waterways of the U.S. would leave protections to state water programs, which, in many cases, are limited in regard to “isolated” wetlands, ephemeral and intermittent streams, and tributaries. In the past, states relied on the federal regulations in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and consequently developed no laws of their own to protect these wetlands and waterways. If the scope of the CWA is limited through the new rulemaking process, there will be few state regulations in place to prevent pollution and loss of wetlands from agriculture, commercial and residential development, resource extraction, and other activities.
The Administration based the need for a new rule-making process on the court case Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County vs. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (SWANCC). The Supreme Court’s decision in this case narrowed the Clean Water Act’s wetland protections by invalidating the use of the “migratory bird rule” as a basis for the Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency to assert CWA authority over isolated, intra-state non-navigable waters. AFS agrees that guidance is required for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to interpret and implement the SWANCC decision, but we believe that reducing CWA jurisdiction is unjustified.
AFS urges EPA and the Corps to communicate with state natural resource and regulatory agencies before moving forward with the new rule-making process. We need strong policy guidance on both regulatory and non-regulatory ways of protecting isolated wetlands and non-navigable tributaries, not a reduction in the strength and scope of the CWA.
Thank you for considering the comments of AFS, representing over 9,000 professional fishery scientists and managers.
Sincerely,
Gus Rassam, Executive Director, American Fisheries Society
CC: Senate Committees on Agricultural Nutrition and Forestry; Commerce, Science and Transportation; Energy and Natural Resources; Environment and Public Works. House Committees on Agriculture; Energy and Commerce; Resources; and Science.
——————
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
