A group that generally considers itself to be conservative disagrees with many of the Bush administration’s policies on the environment. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports on a survey of hunters and anglers:
Transcript
A group that generally considers itself to be conservative disagrees with many of the Bush
Administration’s policies on the environment. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham
reports on a survey of hunters and anglers:
The National Wildlife Federation commissioned a nationwide survey of people who hold hunting or
fishing licenses. It revealed that hunters and anglers generally liked some of the Bush
conservation programs, but disagreed with the Bush approach to controlling mercury pollution,
drilling for gas on public lands, and changing how wetlands are protected. Brian Preston is with the
National Wildlife Federation. He says the survey shows hunters and anglers want to protect the
environment; not just their hunting and fishing rights.
“They’re not the ‘Bubba’ that just cares about filling a bag limit. They do care about their natural
resources, and based on those values, they’re not happy with some of the current policies put forth
by the White House.
More than two-thirds of the hunters and anglers voted for Bush in the last election, but an even
greater number disagree with some of the Bush policies on the environment.
Federal protections for isolated wetlands like this one are in question after a 2001 Supreme Court ruling. Experts say it's not just wetlands that are at risk. They say lakes or streams that have been deemed "isolated" are losing protections as well. (Photo by Mark Brush)
David Brakhage is the Director of Conservation Programs for the Great Lakes region for Ducks Unlimited. He works with people throughout the region who want to restore wetland habitats. (Photo by Mark Brush)
A 1997 U.S. Fish and Wildlife report found that the rate of loss of wetlands decreased in the 1990's. Experts fear the rate has been increasing since the 2001 Supreme Court ruling and subsequent guidance to federal agencies. (Photo by Mark Brush)
Around the country, there are small, isolated swampy areas that are home to a lot of plants and animals. You can often hear frogs singing, or see ducks dabbling for food in these murky waters. Some experts say the government has weakened regulations that once protected these smaller wetlands. Now, they say, many of these wetlands are being drained, filled in and lost. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Mark Brush has more:
Transcript
Around the country there are small, isolated swampy areas that are home
to a lot of plants and animals. You can often hear frogs singing, or
see ducks dabbling for food in these murky waters. Some experts say
the government has weakened regulations that once protected these
smaller wetlands. Now, they say, many of these wetlands are being
drained, filled in and lost. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Mark
Brush has more:
This small wetland is nestled in the middle of a woodlot. Mud is
squishing under our feet as we walk around it. The water is still, and
dark… filled with last year’s rotting leaves.
This is no place for humans to live. But for wildlife, this is home.
(sound of chorus and wood frogs)
“That looks like what was left of a whirligig beetle – that’s a real
common insect in these types of habitats.”
We’re out here with Dave Brakhage. He’s a conservationist with Ducks
Unlimited. He says these small wetlands are where ducks take their
ducklings for food.
Brakhage brought us here to show us an example of a wetland that was
once protected by federal regulations:
“These wetlands are isolated because there’s not a direct water
connection from them to a lake or stream or other water body in the
area. They’re geographically isolated.”
Being isolated puts these wetlands into a sort of regulatory limbo. To
dredge or fill a wetland like this 4 years ago – you needed to apply
for a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers.
Now – in many parts of the country – you don’t need that permit.
That’s because in 2001 the Supreme Court ruled on a case from the
Chicago area that changed everything. The court’s decision opened up a
lot debate about whether isolated wetlands should be protected by the
federal government.
Dave Brakhage says the ruling gave the Bush Administration an
opportunity to issue a guidance to government agencies.
“The Supreme Court ruling certainly threw into question a lot of the
protections that were in place there. And that opened the door to the
guidance. And depending on how the guidance came down and the
interpretations associated with it. It could certainly make things a
whole lot worse.”
The Bush administration issued these instructions to the federal
agencies in January of 2003.
But conservation officials and environmentalists believe the
administration went too far with these instructions, going beyond what
the Supreme Court ruling required.
The instructions were issued prior to drafting a final, formal rule.
But before it finalized the rule – the Bush Administration got an
earful.
“There was a lot of concern expressed on the part of a pretty broad
swath of the American Public.”
Scott Yaich is the Director of Conservation Programs with Ducks
Unlimited. He says the Administration heard protests from those they
considered friendly:
“We were talking about people who were concerned about the environment,
and in this case there were a lot of hunters and a other sporting
groups and angling groups that went into him, and those are a pretty
core part of the Republican and the President’s base.”
So President Bush stopped the rule-making process that would lift the
protections.
But… the original instructions to the agencies still stand.
And the Administration has no plans to change them.
Julie Sibbing is wetlands policy specialist with the National Wildlife
Federation. She says getting the President to back away from finalizing
the rule was a small victory, but there’s still a lot to be done:
“It was a right decision at we do recognize that and we praise the
administration for taking the right step, but they’ve got a long way to
go yet. We still have a long way to go – and there’s a lot at risk.
In fact the EPA’s own estimates are that the guidance has put about 20
million acres, or about 20% of what we have left in the lower 48 states
of wetlands at risk.”
But the risk is not the same for wetlands in different areas of the
country. So today, when developers and landowners go to the Army Corps
of Engineers to apply for a permit, they get different responses
depending on where they are.
Some Corps districts have turned their back on the isolated wetlands,
telling developers no permits are needed.
Other Corps districts are waiting for clearer direction.
Mitch Isoe is the Chief of the Regulatory Branch for the Corps’ Chicago
District. He says he just wants to know what he’s supposed to do.
“We would like to have revised rules on the definitions for our
jurisdiction. We’d just like to have the critical terms that are
causing all of these difficulties defined in a way that two people in
two parts of the country can read the same sentence, go out on the
ground and end up at the same point. And, you know, right now the
field is helpless to do that, because the decision on not to pursue
rulemaking was made in Washington.”
With mixed messages coming from the White House, the Corps of Engineers
and the Environmental Protection Agency are struggling with how and
whether to regulate these wetlands.
In the meantime, it’s generally left up to the states to pass laws to
protect these areas.
Some states have laws that do that, others don’t.
(sound of frogs)
Ducks Unlimited and other conservation and environmental groups are
working with the Administration to protect these wetlands. Dave
Brakhage says doing so will benefit more than just ducks:
“And it’s not just the wildlife – you know wetlands are important in
terms of storing floodwaters, an important site for restoring ground
water recharge, and also have a big role to play in improving our water
quality.”
The Bush Administration says it’s committed to preserving wetlands, and
it even says it plans to increase the amount of wetlands in the U.S.
Environmentalists and hunting groups say they don’t see that happening
right now. But they’re pushing the Administration to make good on that
promise.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Mark Brush.
President George W. Bush’s recent State of the Union address was noted for not saying much about the environment. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:
Transcript
President George W. Bush’s recent State of the Union address was noted for not saying much
about the environment. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:
After President Bush’s speech, environmental groups and others noticed the President barely
made a reference to the environment. Wayne Fields is a professor at Washington University who
studies State of the Union speeches. He says that’s not typical.
“Well, especially in the last 30 years, issues of air quality, water quality have been very high in
the State of the Union agendas for both parties.
Fields says since the State of the Union speech highlights a president’s accomplishments and
plans, no mention of the environment says a lot about President Bush’s priorities.
“The fact that it wasn’t there suggests that it’s not an issue that he thinks is terribly important to
his constituency nor terribly important to his reelection since this is an election year speech.”
The Democrats’ response to the President’s State of the Union address also failed to mention the
environment.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.
Some environmental groups have launched a petition drive to oust a top interior department official. However, their prospects of success are questionable. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Bill Wheelhouse reports:
Transcript
Some environmental groups have launched a petition drive to oust a top interior
department
official. However, their prospects of success are questionable. Bill wheelhouse
reports:
Earth First, Greenpeace and the Common Assets Defense Fund are using an internet
petition
drive to try to get Interior undersecretary, Steven Griles, fired. The groups say
Griles close
association with the gas and coal industries demonstrates the Bush administration is
unfriendly to
the environment.
However, Michael Kraft, who tracks environmental policy at the University of
Wisconsin, Green
Bay, says the effort is unlikely to succeed.
“There clearly will be an effort to gain media attention to highlight what
environmentalists
believe to be unacceptable policies in the Interior Department and elsewhere within
the Bush
administration and my guess is the Bush White House will find it very easy to
respond to those
criticisms much as they have for the last three years.”
Kraft says the drive might get more attention if larger environmental groups, such
as the Sierra
club, Audubon Society and Wildlife Federation took part.
But even if they did, he says it likely would not affect Griles standing within the
administration.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Bill Wheelhouse.
A new poll indicates most Americans don’t like the Bush administration’s approach to global warming. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:
Transcript
A new poll indicates most Americans don’t like the Bush administration’s approach to global warming. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:
The poll was commissioned by the Union of Concerned Scientists. It found that 75-percent of those polled disagreed with the President’s approach asking power plants and others to voluntarily reduce emissions such as carbon dioxide believed to cause global warming… and they rejected the Bush administration’s proposal that we simply
adapt to the changes global warming will cause. Alden Meyer is the Director of Government Relations for the Union of Concerned Scientists…
“This is true not only for three-quarters of the public as a whole, but for around two-thirds of those who voted for President Bush. So, as the leader of the Republican party he is greatly out of step with the rank and file base of his own party on the issue of global warming.”
The Union of Concerned Scientists says the Bush administration paid too close attention to energy industry officials and ignored the public when putting together its energy plan.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.
Some of the nation’s leading environmental organizations say President Bush has drafted a ‘slash and burn’ budget when it comes to the environment. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:
A former state administrator from the Midwest has been nominated by President Bush to fill the nation’s top environmental enforcement position. Former Ohio EPA director Donald Schregardus now faces Senate confirmation to become the Assistant USEPA Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance. But, as Senate confirmation hearings begin in Washington, activists in Ohio say Schregardus’ pro-business philosophy makes him the wrong choice for the job. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Natalie Walston reports:
