Wetlands Ruling Confusing

Federal officials just announced which
wetlands they’ll protect and which ones they
won’t. The announcement was supposed to clear up
the confusion around federal wetlands
protection. But as Mark Brush reports, the
confusion and the controversy continue:

Transcript

Federal officials just announced which
wetlands they’ll protect and which ones they
won’t. The announcement was supposed to clear up
the confusion around federal wetlands
protection. But as Mark Brush reports, the
confusion and the controversy continue:


The controversy began when government officials stopped developers from building on
wetlands. The Supreme Court ruled the government should clear up exactly which
wetlands are protected under federal law.


Federal agencies now have new guidelines, but the Assistant Secretary of the Corps of
Engineers says it’s not clear whether more wetlands are at risk:


“It’s, I would say, very difficult if not impossible to determine the precise impact of this
vis a vis the prior existing regulation.”


Some environmentalists believe that more wetlands will be at risk because of the new
guidelines. Jim Murphy is an attorney with the National Wildlife Federation:


“It increases confusion. It puts a lot of important resources at risk. It’s really a disaster
all around.”


Now, Congress might step in with new laws to protect more wetlands.


For the Environment Report, I’m Mark Brush.

Related Links

Governor Blocks Great Lakes Water Diversion

The governor of Michigan is blocking a request by a town in
Wisconsin to pump water from Lake Michigan. The GLRC’s Sarah
Hulett reports:

Transcript

The governor of Michigan is blocking a request by a town in
Wisconsin to pump water from Lake Michigan. The GLRC’s Sarah
Hulett reports:


Under federal law right now, any one of the eight Great Lakes
governors can veto a proposed water withdrawal, but a
proposed agreement between the eight states would allow
communities that straddle the boundary that defines the Great
Lakes basin to draw water from the lakes.


The town of New Berlin, Wisconsin sits on the boundary. It’s
asking for permission to draw water from Lake Michigan for the
half of the city that sits outside the basin, but Governor Granholm
of Michigan says she won’t consider the request.


Michigan Department of Environmental Quality Spokesman Bob
McCann says he realizes one town won’t drain the lake:


“But a thousand such proposals coming in may do that. So the question is,
where do you draw the line?”


Michigan’s governor says until that new multi-state agreement is
ratified, it’s important not to set a bad precedent.


For the GLRC, I’m Sarah Hulett.

Related Links

Mega-Churches Clash With Local Governments

Religious groups are suing local governments across the country for denying permits to build religious buildings. Part of the reason is that many churches are building bigger buildings that take up acres of land. And many of the disputes are between rural neighborhoods, and so-called mega-churches, with buildings over 50 thousand square feet. A federal law limits the power of local governments to say “no” to buildings designed for religious use. The GLRC’s Linda Stephan reports:

Transcript

Religious groups are suing local governments across the country for denying permits to
build religious buildings. Part of the reason is that many churches are building bigger
buildings that take up acres of land. And many of the disputes are between rural
neighborhoods, and so-called mega-churches, with buildings over 50 thousand square feet.
A federal law limits the power of local governments to say “no” to buildings designed for
religious use. The GLRC’s Linda Stephan reports:


Bay Pointe Community Church prides itself on a contemporary worship style.


(Sound of singing, “Show your power, oh Lord our God, oh Lord our God”)


Members believe it’s their job to reach out to the world, and to the local community.
(Sound of singing, “to Asia and Austrailia, to South America and to the United States.
And to Michigan and Traverse City”)


But some people in the community think the church would be a bad neighbor. Right now,
the church in northern Michigan meets in a high school auditorium. But members have big plans for a
building of their own. It’ll be 58-thousand square-feet. That’s plenty of room for
Sunday school classes, a gym/auditorium, and even space enough to rent out to a
charter school on weekdays.


A year ago local township officials shot down those plans. They said the building’s
“too big,” that it would clash with the area, and that it would cause too much traffic.
Then the church sued, claiming religious discrimination.


The church has some unhappy neighbors in the rural area where it plans to build.
At a public hearing, resident Brian Vos told local officials NOT to back down,
regardless of the lawsuit.


“This isn’t about a church, this is about future development. Heck, Wal-Mart
could come in on East Long Lake. And if they had church on Sunday, you’d have to approve it.”


But, rather than spend hundreds of thousands of dollars defending itself in federal
court, the township settled out-of-court. It agreed to let the church build its building,
and even to let it expand to more than 100 thousand square feet within a few years.


Many residents are NOT happy with the deal and they’ve threatened to recall
the entire township board.


There are similar cases across the country. A recent federal law limits the ability of
zoning boards to say “no” to churches and other religious groups who want to build,
or to expand. Jared Leland represents the Washington-based Becket Fund for Religious Liberty.
The group is bankrolling lawsuits on behalf of churches across the nation. Leland says
the law was created because zoning boards have used bogus arguments to deny permits
to religious groups they don’t like:


“For instance, a Buddhist meditation center was being restricted from existing in a
particular district because they would generate too much ‘noise.’ They
were silent meditation Buddhists. There would absolutely be no noise coming from such.”


Leland says because of the law, today, a municipality needs a
“compelling government interest” to deny a religious building project.
That’s a serious issue that has to do with health, safety, or security.
He says municipalities are usually worried about how a building will look,
or about parking. And he says that’s not enough:


“For instance, if they say, well, something this large is gonna generate too
much traffic, it’s gonna cause parking concerns in the residential district,
those are not compelling government interests.”


But some say putting a mega-church in an area where the community
wants to preserve farmland or keep sprawl away from greenspace should be enough.


“The question is: What is valuable to Americans?”


Marci Hamilton is an expert on church-state law at Cardozo Law School in New York City.
She argues that residential neighborhoods should have some say about what’s being built
next door, through their local government.


Hamilton says the law that Congress passed, RLUIPA, the Religious Land Use and
Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, is an unprecedented Congressional power grab
from local governments. She says people expect local officials to protect their
neighborhoods from problems like traffic, and noise.


Hamilton says since just the threat of a federal court case is often
enough to force a settlement, there’s an incentive for churches to sue
local governments. Even where the case has no merit under RLUIPA:


“What we’re seeing is almost anything appearing on the mega-church campuses.
We have one in Texas that has a McDonald’s on campus. We have a mega-church in
Pennsylvania that has an automobile repair. I think it’s hard to argue that
those largely commercial activities appropriately fall under RLUIPA.”


Hamilton says she believes the Supreme Court will eventually rule
that the law violates state’s rights. But the High Court has yet to hear a
land use case under this law.


For the GLRC, I’m Linda Stephan.

Related Links

Muddy Waters Around Wetlands Ruling

  • 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)

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.


(frogs fade)

Related Links

New Air Pollution Rule Under Fire

Environmentalists are protesting a new air pollution rule from the Bush Administration. They say it will make it easier for the industry to continue to pollute or even pollute more. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:

Transcript

Environmentalists are protesting a new air pollution rule from The Bush administration. They
say it will make it easier for the industry to continue to pollute or even pollute more. The Great
Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:


Despite the 1970 Clean Air Act, some factory owners have kept polluting at the same rate for
more than 30 years. That’s because plants only were required to add pollution controls when
making significant updates. Environmentalists say a new rule put in place by the Bush
administration makes that loophole even bigger.


Eric Schaeffer is a former EPA official who quit, protesting the weakening of environmental
rules.


“What this rule says is if you’re sitting on an old plant that’s pretty dirty, that’s uncontrolled, that
isn’t meeting the Clean Air Act standards, you can go in and piece by piece, you can continue to
rebuild these plants and keep them alive and keep them going without putting on pollution
controls.”


The new rule comes in the wake of a General Accounting Office report that found the Bush
White House made the decision based almost entirely upon anecdotes from factory owners rather
than from hard data collected by the EPA.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.

Related Links

Is Groundwater Fair Game?

In Michigan, the Perrier Group of America is building a water bottling plant near the town of Big Rapids. It’s a project that has raised the ire of local environmental groups, and it’s raised the question of whether groundwater in Great Lakes states should be for sale. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Matt Shafer Powell has the story:

Transcript

In Michigan, the Perrier Group of America is building a water bottling plant near the town of Big Rapids. It’s a project that has raised the ire of local environmental groups. And it’s raised the question of whether groundwater in Great Lakes states should be for sale. Michigan Radio’s Matt Shafer Powell reports.

Perrier hopes to pump water from the ground, bottle it and sell it.
Terry Swier is President of the Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation.
Despite assurances from Perrier, she worries that a plant that pumps more than 700-thousand gallons of water a day will steal water from the area’s lakes and wetlands…

“We are not just talking about the water for the people. We’re also talking about the water for the fish, the mosquitoes, the deer, all of the environment”


But the issue has grown beyond the local impact. Within a few weeks, officials from the Michigan Attorney General’s office hope to release a report on the topic. The question is whether federal law allows Great Lakes governors to prohibit the sale of groundwater-the way they can with Great Lakes water. For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Matt Shafer Powell.

Water Diversion Lawsuit

The Sierra Club and six other environmental groups are suing the Army Corps of Engineers. The environmentalists claim the Corps (core) is violating a federal law that prevents the diversion of Great Lakes waters. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Steve Frenkel reports: