Tag: environmental advocates

Region’s New Governors Face Challenges

New governors from different political parties than their predecessors took over in more than half of the states around the Great Lakes. In most of those states, the governor’s seat went from Republican to Democrat. Some environmental groups are optimistic that the changes will benefit their causes. But the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham spoke with journalists around the region who feel politics and state budgets will slow any change the new governors might want:

Transcript

New governors from different political parties than their predecessors took over in more than half
of the states around the Great Lakes. In most of those states, the governors’ seat went from
Republican to Democrat. Some environmental groups are optimistic that the changes will benefit
their causes. But the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham spoke with journalists
around the region who feel politics and state budget problems will slow any change the new
governors might want:


Five of the eight Great Lakes states have new governors. Four of those states went from
governorships long-held by Republicans to a Democrat governor.


For example, Republicans held the Illinois govenor’s seat for 26 years. That changed when
Democrat Rod Blagojevich took the office. The environment was not a huge issue in the
campaign. Under the Republicans there’s been an interest in acquiring large pieces of land for
parks and creating green corridors. And Blagojevich is even retaining the previous
administration’s director of the state Environmental Protection Agency. Still, some
environmentalists feel they’ll fare better under a Democrat.


At the Illinois capitol, Bill Wheelhouse is the Statehouse Bureau Chief for Illinois Public Radio.
He says the change probably won’t be that significant…


“Environmental groups will see more friendly territory for some of their pet projects to some
degree. But, Illinois is not a liberal state. It’s not one that is concerned with ground-breaking
legislation on the environment or anything else. Politics is a business in that state and that can
never be forgotten.”


Despite that, the new governor, Blagojevich, has outlined a couple of areas he’d like to change.
One is charging businesses for pollution discharge permits, something that’s been free in the past.
It’s popular among lawmakers because it brings in more money for the state which is facing
budget deficits. Bill Wheelhouse says another issue Blagojevich has proposed is legislation
mandating that Illinois power companies use renewable resources such as wind and solar power.


“What it would do is in just a couple of years require that part of the energy portfolio of a utility
company include five percent renewable energy and that would increase, I believe, up to about
15-percent a decade down the road.”


Again, that kind of legislation wouldn’t cost the state any new money. That’s a plus.
Wheelhouse adds that even with Blagojevich’s fellow Democrats controlling both the House and
the Senate, any environmental proposal that doesn’t pay for itself is not likely to get very far,
because of Illinois’ budget deficit.


It’s the same story in other states. Illinois’ neighbor to the north, Wisconsin, also saw a shift
from several years under Republican governors to a newly installed Democrat. Jim Doyle is now
Governor.


Reporter Chuck Quirmbach covers environmental issues for Wisconsin Public Radio. He says
the race for governor touched on the environment, but there was another more immediate issue to
consider.


“The overwhelming issue, the issue common to a lot of states is the state budget deficit here in
Wisconsin, but the environment was an important difference. It energized a lot of environmental
groups to vote for Doyle or this Green Party candidate who got about two-percent of the vote. So,
it was a significant difference. It may not have been the number one issue in the state, though.”


Quirmbach says while environmentalists are optimistic about a Democrat taking the governor’s
office, Governor Doyle will have to compromise with the Republicans who hold a majority in
both chambers of the Wisconsin legislature… and he’ll have to make compromises because of the
state’s budget…


“The threat to the green agenda will be the economy and whether Doyle decides, ‘Well, putting
people to work might be more important than protecting certain wetlands or protecting the
environment from air pollution.'”


Across Lake Michigan from Wisconsin is another state that’s long had a Republican governor.
Michigan elected Democrat Jennifer Granholm, and in Michigan, the environment was a key issue
in the campaign for governor.


Sarah Hulett covers state government for Michigan Public Radio Network. She says the
Democrat governor quickly moved on an environmental issue which gets some Republican
support in Michigan.


“Right when the governor came in, Governor Granholm, she put together a land-use commission
— Smart Growth Commission, I think, is the name of it — made up of Democrats and Republicans
and involved the Republican leaders in both chambers in that. So, she’s off to a pretty good start
in terms of the environment, I’d say.”


But, like Wisconsin and Illinois, Michigan is facing budget problems and Hulett says the new
Democrat governor might find the environmental initiatives that cost the state will be a hard
sell to the Republican-held legislature.


“Well, the deficit is huge. And, so, that affects everything across the board. And, you know, the
environmental community is having to be patient with some of these initiatives.”


It’s a similar story in Pennsylvania where Democrat Ed Rendell took the governor’s seat from
Republicans. Rendell is friendly to environmental issues, but he, too, has to deal with a budget
deficit and he has to work with a Republican-controlled legislature.


So, despite conventional wisdom which indicates more enviro-friendly laws might come from a
Democrat in the Governor’s mansion, in those states where there’s been a change, the economy
might force those governors to put the environment further down on the list of priorities.


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

REGION’S NEW GOVERNORS FACE CHALLENGES (Short Version)

Half of the states surrounding the Great Lakes have seen the governor’s office switch from Republican to Democrat. Environmental organizations believe that will be good for their causes. But the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports other factors might interfere:

Transcript

Half of the states surrounding the Great Lakes have seen the governor’s office switch from
Republican to Democrat. Environmental organizations believe that will be good for their causes.
But the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports other factors might interfere:


Conventional wisdom finds that Democrats are more often friendly to environmental issues than
Republicans. Of course that’s not always true, but when four Democrats seized four
governorships that had been long-held by Republicans, many environmentalists were optimistic
they’d get a better deal. That optimism might be short-lived. Now that the Democrat governors
in Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania have had time to look at the budget, the reality
of politics is setting in and in most cases the environment isn’t quite as high on the list of
priorities. Each of the states is facing budget shortfalls, some amounting to a couple of billion
dollars. And in three of those states the Democrat governor will have to work with a legislature
controlled by Republicans. Political observers say it’s clear that the new governors will have to
find compromises in any environmental initiatives they talked up during the campaigns.


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

Wetlands Policy Leaves Some High and Dry?

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Army Corps of Engineers recently announced plans to change their policies on enforcing the Clean Water Act on some wetlands. The move is in response to a Supreme Court decision that puts limits on the federal government’s jurisdiction over wetlands. Some environmental advocates are concerned the move will put millions of acres of wetlands in jeopardy. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Jonathan Ahl reports:

Transcript

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Army Corps of Engineers recently announced
plans to change their policies on enforcing the Clean Water Act on some wetlands. The move is
in response to a Supreme Court decision that puts limits on the federal government’s jurisdiction
over wetlands. Some environmental advocates are concerned the move will put millions of acres
of wetlands in jeopardy. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Jonathan Ahl reports:


More than ten years ago, 23 suburbs in the Chicago area wanted to convert an old stone quarry
into a landfill to combat a shortage of space to put trash. But in the 25 years since the quarry was
abandoned, it filled with water and became home to birds, fish and plants.


The federal government called the site a
wetland and blocked the landfill project citing the Clean Water Act. The Corps said the old
quarry was now an important part of the environment because it provided plant and wildlife
habitats and protected the surrounding area from floods. The communities sued the Army Corps
of Engineers over the issue.


The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2001 that the federal government
can’t enforce the Clean Water Act on bodies of water that were isolated and not part of a larger
water system. The five to four decision of the court put that responsibility in the hands of the
states. The U.S. EPA and Army Corps of Engineers recently released plans to abide by those
rules.


Cameron Davis is with the Lake Michigan Federation, an advocacy group focusing on
environmental issues in the Great Lakes region. He says the federal government is backing
down too quickly:


“Well, I think what we’re seeing is another example of the administration scaling back the federal
environmental protections. Especially at the time when the states simply are not well equipped to
be able to pick up where those federal protections leave off. In an ideal world, the type of
proposal we are seeing would have been done in coordination with the states. It would
have been done in a way that will not leave wetlands out to dry.”


Davis says the Supreme Court decision only specifically relates to one case, and the federal
government was too quick to expand those thoughts to other wetlands. Davis says a longer
review process of exactly which wetlands the federal government can regulate would provide
better policy and more clarity on the issue. But the EPA says it is not sidestepping its
responsibility. Ben Grumbles is with the EPA’s Office of Water. He says the agency is doing
what it feels it has to do to comply with the Supreme Court decision.


“It’s our intent to take the interpretation that is the most reasonable and the most defensible one
that is also consistent with our mission of protecting wetlands and watersheds. We are fully
committed to protecting wetlands and watersheds to the full extent under the Clean Water Act
and the Supreme Court decision.”


Grumbles says while the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers are planning to abide by the high
court ruling, it will also be working with states to help them protect wetlands that fall outside of
the federal governments newly-defined jurisdiction. Grumbles also says the EPA is taking public
comment so it can better define what makes a body of water an isolated wetland. While the EPA
and advocacy groups have differing opinions of how to interpret the Supreme Court decision, the
legal debate might not be over.


Chris Shafer is a law professor at the Thomas Cooley Law
School in Lansing, Michigan. He says the high court made a mistake by
assuming isolated wetlands are not the responsibility of the federal government:


“I think the court also made a giant leap of logic by saying that, ‘Well, it’s not really a major issue
in terms of wetland protection because the states will take over this responsibility.’ That’s just
laughable because the states are not likely to take over wetland protection. It’s very
controversial, it’s very difficult, it’s very expensive.”


Shafer says the Supreme Court decision is so narrowly focused on such a small area of the law,
that clarification from Congress would remove any doubt as to where the federal government
could assert its authority in wetland issues. Right now there are no plans for such legislation, and
observers say it’s doubtful that a Republican-controlled Congress and the current administration
would address the issue. Environmental activists say in the mean time, they will turn their focus
to state legislatures to encourage them to pass laws to preserve these wetlands no longer protected
by the federal government.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Jonathan Ahl.