An environmental group is taking issue with a Bush Administration proposal to change the Clean Water Act. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Jonathan Ahl reports:
Transcript
An environmental group is taking issue with a Bush Administration proposal to change
the Clean Water Act. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Jonathan Ahl reports:
The Bush Administration is considering removing non-navigable rivers,
adjacent wetlands, and headwaters from the protections of the Clean Water Act. Ed
Hopkins is a senior lobbyist for the Sierra Club. He says that change would create major
problems for the waters still covered by the act:
“If you allow the headwaters rivers to be polluted or to be filled in for development of
one kind or another it is certainly going to have an effect on the downstream areas.
Those downstream rivers are going
to get dirtier.”
Hopkins says the Clean Water Act will become nearly useless if this change goes though.
The Bush Administration has announced its intent to seek the change, but has not
formalized the proposal or started the process to change the Clean Water Act.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Jonathan Ahl.
A new poll finds most Canadians surveyed believe Canada should ratify the Kyoto agreement in order to slow the effects of global warming. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Karen Kelly reports:
Transcript
A new poll finds most Canadians surveyed believe Canada should ratify the Kyoto agreement in order to slow the effects of global warming. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Karen Kelly reports:
While the Bush administration has rejected the Kyoto Accord, Canadian leaders are still deciding whether to ratify it. The survey of 2,000 people, conducted by a research firm on behalf of Greenpeace Canada, suggests 78 percent of Canadians would support ratification. The findings come after an intense lobbying campaign against ratification by high oil producing and energy consuming provinces. They argue the accord will devastate Canada’s economy as it competes with countries that aren’t part of the agreement. The plan calls for nations to reduce their output of greenhouse gases to three and a half percent below 1990 levels. The 15 members of the European Union have announced they will ratify the agreement this year.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Karen Kelly.
The Bush administration’s new strategy to improve the environment of the Great Lakes is being eyed with skepticism by some of the environmental groups in the basin. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:
Transcript
The Bush administration’s new strategy to improve the environment of the Great Lakes is being eyed with skepticism by some of the environmental groups in the basin. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:
The White House’s new Great Lakes Strategy was announced by Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Christie Whitman as a “shared, long-range vision” for the Great Lakes. It includes a timeline for cleaning up contaminated areas, goals for reducing PCBs in fish, making sure it’s safe to swim at beaches more often, and restoring sensitive environmental areas. But an international coalition of environmental groups and others, Great Lakes United, says the Bush administration’s strategy doesn’t offer anything binding and offers no additional money. Margaret Wooster is the group’s Executive Director.
“We’d be happier if there was more of a strategy here for overcoming the obstacles that have in front of us. We can only be hopeful that some of these goals will be met.”
But Wooster adds, without more direction from the administration on how to meet the goals, it will be left to the people of the Great Lakes basin to prod the government to meet its goals.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.
A controversial former Ohio EPA official has become the top navy official in charge of environmental clean up. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Natalie Walston has details:
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:
Canadians are looking at new measures to ban the export of water. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham has more:
Transcript
Canadians are looking at new measures to ban the export of water. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports.
If it’s passed, legislation in Quebec would prevent the export of water from that province. In a report in the newspaper Le Journal de Quebec, the Environment Minister noted that the North American Free Trade Agreement already bans shipment of water by tank, but since the term “tank” is not defined in NAFTA, the Minister feels Quebec should define clear policy. Under the measure, Quebec would still allow the sale of water bottled in containers of less than 20 liters, about the size of a water cooler jug. It would not allow any large vessels or trucks to carry water away and would also ban piping the water out of the province. Canada has been especially sensitive to water issues since President George Bush suggested earlier this year Great Lakes water could be shipped to more arid parts of the U.S. For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Lester Graham.
President Bush’s pick to fill a top enforcement job with the U-S Environmental Protection Agency has withdrawn his name from consideration. Donald Schregardus faced tough criticism from environmentalists and Democratic senators for his record while he was Director of the Ohio EPA. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Natalie Walston has this report:
Transcript
President Bush’s pick to fill a top enforcement job with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has withdrawn his name from consideration. Donald Schregardus faced tough criticism from environmentalists and democratic senators for his record while he was director of the Ohio EPA. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Natalie Walston reports.
In withdrawing his name from consideration, Donald Schregardus wrote to President Bush that it’s clear the U.S. Senate won’t consider his nomination in a timely manner. Democratic senators Barbara Boxer of California and Chuck Schumer of New York delayed a senate vote on his nomination. The senators and environmentalists say Schregardus failed to enforce clean air and clean water laws while he was head of the Ohio EPA from 1991 to 1999. Schregardus defended his record in the letter to Bush. He says because of his leadership, Ohio is cleaner, and regulatory programs are stronger.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Natalie Walston.
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?