Some environmental groups are calling the Army Corps of Engineers “arrogant” for a policy change that the environmentalists say will make it easier for developers to destroy wetland habitat. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham has the details:
Transcript
Some environmental groups are calling the Army Corps of Engineers “arrogant” for a policy change that the environmentalists say will make it easier for developers to destroy wetland habitat. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports.
Since the first Bush administration, federal agencies have tried to make sure that if a development destroyed wetlands, the developer had to create an equal amount of wetlands somewhere else. The goal was ‘no net loss of wetlands.’ Now, the Army Corps of Engineers has changed its policy through a newly issued guidance letter. Developers will only have to preserve existing wetlands somewhere else. or establish buffer strips along a waterway instead of creating replacement wetlands. Robin Mann is with the Sierra Club.
“Despite the fact that the Corps is denying it, we see this guidance letter as really, basically abandoning that national goal, that policy of ‘no net loss.’
Even with the ‘no net loss’ policy in place, an average of 58-thousand acres of wetland was lost each year. The environmental groups say a lot more wetlands will disappear because of the Army Corps of Engineers new policy. For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Lester Graham.
The Bush Administration wants to shift more of the job of enforcing environmental laws to the states. The Environmental Protection Agency proposes to give states twenty-five million dollars to do the job. However, environmentalists, the General Accounting Office and even the EPA’s own Office of Inspector General find problems with the plan. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham has more:
Transcript
The Bush administration wants to shift more of the job of enforcing environmental laws to the states. The Environmental Protection Agency proposes to give states 25-million dollars to do the job. However, Environmentalists, the General Accounting Office and EVEN the EPA’s own Office of Inspector General find problems with the plan. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports.
Although the EPA is responsible for enforcement of national environmental laws, in most cases it assigns much of that authority to the states. Already 44 state environmental agencies act as the enforcement agency for the EPA. Now in its fiscal year 2002 budget, the Environmental Protection Agency’s Administrator, Christie Todd Whitman, proposes cutting the agency’s staff and giving more money to the states to enforce environmental laws. This move would only shift a little more of that burden to the states.
Some members of Congress have been pushing for shifting many of the federal government’s enforcement duties to the state level, arguing that the people at the state level are more attuned to the effects that strictly enforcing regulatory laws can have on the local economy.
The EPA has found that’s sometimes true. But in considering the economic impact, the state regulators don’t always enforce the law the way the EPA wants it to be done and that can be bad for the environment. Eileen McMahon is with the EPA’s Office of the Inspector General.
“We have –going back to 1996– been doing reviews and evaluations of different areas of enforcement, air enforcement, water enforcement, other enforcement and have found, certainly, cases where the states could be doing a better job.”
In a report released just last month the EPA’s Inspector General found that while some states have great records at enforcing environmental laws. But in many other cases some states have simply looked the other way.
“We found that states’ concerns with regulating small and economically vital businesses and industries had an impact on whether or not they were effectively deterring non-compliance.”
Some environmental groups are not surprised by those findings. Elliot Negin is with the Natural Resources Defense Council. He says he wouldn’t expect much good to come from letting states take more responsibility for enforcing environmental laws.
“Well, it’s gonna open a whole can of worms. The states, many states have pretty bad track records when it comes to upholding environmental laws. And, the state politicians are, unfortunately, sometimes too close to the polluters through campaign contributions and what not.”
Despite those concerns, some members of Congress feel the US EPA has been too aggressive in its application of environmental laws, and that shifting more of the enforcement authority to the states would bring a certain measure of common sense to the process.
As, the two sides argue about the merits of enforcing environmental laws at the federal level or the state level. One government office says no decision should be made at all just yet. The General Accounting office says the states and the EPA should take stock of how things are working now.
The GAO just released a report that finds cutting staff at the federal level and shifting resources to the state level — in other words, just what EPA Administrator Christie Todd Whittman is proposing— is premature. John Stephenson is the Director of Natural Resources and Environment for the GAO. He says the EPA has no idea how many people it takes to properly enforce the law because its workforce plan is more than a decade old.
“And, so, that’s basic information you would need to determine, number one, how many enforcement personnel that the states might need and number two how many personnel EPA headquarters might need to oversee the states.”
The GAO’s Stephenson says until some kind of workforce assessment is done. There’s little point in debating whether the EPA or the states are better suited to enforce environmental laws.
“This shift in authority, as you know, is an ongoing debate in the Congress and we feel like that there needs to be this basic workforce analysis done before either side is in a position to support their relative positions.”
The EPA agreed with the General Accounting Office’s findings. But it’s unclear whether there’s enough time to assess the agencies and states’ workforce needs before Congress approves the budget that could shift some of the enforcement authority to the states.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.
The Bush Administration is proposing the Environmental Protection Agency turn over more of its enforcement authority to the states. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham explains:
Transcript
The Bush administration is proposing the Environmental Protection Agency turn over more of its enforcement authority to the states. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports.
In the fiscal year 2002 budget, EPA Administrator Christie Todd Whittman proposes cutting agency staff who enforce environmental laws and in their place giving states additional money to do that job. Some environmental groups say that’s a bad idea because some states have a terrible track record on enforcing environmental laws. Eileen McMahon is with the EPA’s Office of the Inspector General. That office reports states sometimes look the other way.
“We found that the state enforcement programs could be much more effective in the deterrence and non-compliance of permits.”
The Inspector General says sometimes the states don’t enforce the law when the business is vital to the local economy. For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.
As the debate on a national energy policy intensifies, the hunt for more places to drill and dig for new energy is escalating. States are now turning their attention to prospecting in one place that hits close to home: the Great Lakes. As Great Lakes Radio Consortium commentator Cameron Davis of the Lake Michigan Federation explains, drilling under the continent’s largest body of fresh surface water is not something to be taken lightly:
Transcript
As the debate on a national energy policy intensifies, the hunt for more places to drill and dig for new energy is escalating. States are now focusing their attention on prospecting for one place that hits close to home: the Great Lakes. As commentator Cameron Davis of the Lake Michigan Federation explains, drilling under the continent’s largest body of fresh surface water is not something to be taken lightly.
No matter which estimate you believe – that there’s only enough oil and gas to power a Great Lakes state for 2 minutes or 8 weeks – opening the Great Lakes to new oil and gas drilling is simply not worth the risk. Hydrogen sulfide, known to exist in lakebed oil and gas reserves, can escape during drilling causing far-reaching human health problems. Wellhead and pipeline leaks can contaminate groundwater and surface water in streams, often without adequate cleanups by the state agency responsible for drilling oversight. And, drilling can damage some of the most fragile fish and wildlife habitat known, habitat that exists along Great Lakes coasts.
The argument that drilling means more royalties to states doesn’t even hold up. One state Auditor General recently found that oversight of leasing and royalty payments from drilling operations continues to be lax. What does this mean? It means that taxpayers aren’t getting the financial benefits from drilling that they’re supposed to get.
Last, it’s not unusual for the same state agency to serve as subjective promoter of drilling while at the same time supposing to be the objective regulator. States such as Michigan, which is leading the charge for new drilling, can’t have it both ways and maintain their credibility. If they try to have it both ways, it’s inevitable that Congress will step in – as it did this summer with its own legislation.
President Bush, legislative leaders from both sides of the aisle, and a majority of citizens have all said that Great Lakes oil and gas drilling isn’t worth the risk. So why does a bad idea keep moving forward?
The Bush Administration wants authority over states to approve putting new power transmission lines where they’re needed. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports… some governors don’t think that’s necessary:
Transcript
The Bush Administration wants authority over states to approve putting new power transmission lines where they’re needed. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports some governors don’t think that’s necessary.
Right now, states have the right to approve where power lines are built. But energy secretary Spencer Abraham recently told governors if the states didn’t cooperate with the Bush Energy Plan to put up more power transmission lines, the President would ask Congress for federal eminent domain powers. That would give the administration the power to condemn land and take it over. Reports say many of the governors are resistant to the plan, saying the authority to site new power lines should be kept at state and local levels. But some governors agree that if states balk, the federal authority should be granted. The Bush Energy Plan calls for more power lines to eliminate so-called bottlenecks in the nation’s power grid.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.