Destruction of Environmental Policy

Eric Orr
Stekoa Creek, flooded at a development site, suffers from lack of EPA enforcement.

Over the last four years, the air has become cleaner, our water more pure, and we have reversed the net loss of wetlands. In addition, our parks are better managed, better funded, and better protected. Throughout his first term, President Bush has launched a series of climate change initiatives to improve scientific understanding and reduce emissions through the use of new, energy-efficient technologies.” That’s the state of our environment according to www.georgewbush.com, the official website of Bush-Cheney ’04, Inc.

By the time this article is published, the result of the 2004 presidential election will be decided, assuming the process goes as planned. Regardless of who is in charge next year, Bush has indeed launched a series of climate change initiatives, and his administration has left in its wake a legacy of environmental erosion. Two major targets are the National Environmental Policy Act and the Clean Water Act.

National Environmental Policy Act

In 1970, President Nixon signed into law the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). NEPA established a set of rules which requires federal agencies to use scientific research and public participation to assess any major action concerning natural resources. Under NEPA regulations, the government must present an exhaustive study called and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for any action that significantly impacts the environment. In addition to an EIS, the public must be “scoped” for comment. NEPA declares that “each person should enjoy a healthful environment and that each person has a responsibility to contribute to the preservation and enhancement of the environment.” It grants citizens the right to voice concerns and offer suggestions to federal actions that impact the environment. After the comment period expires, the agency must consider all submissions including possible alternatives.

Since its inception NEPA has played a vital role in securing environmental victory for a concerned public. In the early 1980’s the Forest Service scoped a proposal to build an observation deck at Bull Sluice, which lies in a section of the Chattooga River that is designated “wild” by the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. The act specifies that the shorelines of wild rivers must remain primitive. A small uprising from local environmentalists and river enthusiasts ensued. Comments were submitted to the Forest Service and letters were written to politicians. In the end, the government reversed the decision. A similar situation occurred not long after when the Forest Service announced a plan to build a platform at Dick’s Creek Falls. Like Bull Sluice, Dick’s Creek enters the Chattooga River in a wild section, and again, public comment incited the Forest Service to abandon the plan.

NEPA allows government agencies to take care of routine business by the use of “categorical exclusion.” As defined by NEPA, categorical exclusion is “a category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment…” What this means to us is that the government is neither required to produce an Environmental Impact Statement nor is the public allowed to appeal their decision. It’s a necessary tool for tackling everyday procedural duties, such as maintaining and restocking campsite bathhouses. But it has recently become subject to serious abuse. The public participation process has been reduced to a meaningless formality leaving citizens with no rights to appeal impactive government projects.

Take the Healthy Forests Initiative, for instance. President Bush announced the plan in August 2002 after wildfires burned rampant the previous year. He said the initiative would promote forest health by expediting forest thinning projects and ensuring “sustainable forest management and appropriate timber production.” It would provide safety to communities near public lands by reducing hazardous fuels and “by reducing unnecessary regulatory obstacles that hinder active forest management.” As a result of the Healthy Forests Initiative, the Forest Service has permanently added new categorical exclusions to its management plan. Hazardous fuels reduction projects are now eligible to be exempt from environmental assessment and public appeal. A mechanical removal project, such as logging, can be categorically excluded if the project area is less than 1,000 acres, and a prescribed burn can be up to 4,500 acres. So commercial logging can be excluded if the primary intent is fuel reduction, but the Forest Service previously could not categorically exclude any commercial logging project that exceeded 10 acres.

The 2003 Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA) takes even more decision making power from the public. Again Bush used the public’s fear of fire to push the new law, claiming that too often citizens’ appeals stalled fuel reduction projects, despite a General Accounting Office report which stated that 97 percent of the 762 logging projects reviewed were not even contested. According to the report, over 95 percent of the projects occurred in a timely manner. But the HFRA was signed in to law in December 2003. The new law imposes restrictions on who can legally challenge or appeal logging projects, and it allows timber companies to harvest mature trees in remote areas in the name of “fire prevention.” One of the major flaws of HFRA is funding. Bush’s Fiscal Year 2005 Budget provides no money for hazardous fuel reduction on non-federal lands, but the federal government only owns 15 percent of the “buffer lands” surrounding communities that are at a high fire risk. So it’s up to the individual communities or states to deal with the remaining 85 percent. Instead of actually addressing the real fire hazards, HFRA projects are focused on more commercially valuable areas.

In the 2nd presidential debate of 2004, Bush had this to say of his new law: “What happens in those forests, because of lousy federal policy, is they grow to be — they are not — they're not harvested. They're not taken care of. And as a result, they're like tinderboxes.” In January 2004 the Forest Service finalized their decision to open Giant Sequoia National Monument to logging for the sake of wildfire risk reduction. Under the plan, trees up to 30 inches in diameter and over 100 years old may be cut. 10 million board feet, enough trees to fill 3,000 logging trucks, can be harvested each year. But big trees are not hazardous fuels. They resist burning. HRFA affects all national forests across the entire U.S. In a temperate rain forest such as the Southern Appalachians, trees are the best protection against fire. If they are allowed to mature they provide a canopy which keeps the forest floor cool, damp, and free of flammable underbrush. Intensive timber harvest only serves to increase the risk of fire.

Clean Water Act

In an effort to reverse the environmental degradation of the nation’s waterways, Congress passed the Clean Water Act in 1972. It was a huge victory for citizens, because it not only limited pollution, but it attempted to reverse the effects. It was critical to maintaining a safe water supply for people and wildlife alike. The law protected every single water source in the U.S., including small tributaries, bogs, ponds, and even prairie potholes. It remained intact for over 30 years.

Then in January 2003 the Bush administration announced plans to change Clean Water Act rules and issued a policy directive that would immediately imperil the health of many of our water sources. The directive says that regulators (the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Corps of Engineers) must seek permission from Washington to extend protection to certain intrastate non-navigable waters that are “isolated.” However, no justification is necessary to withdraw protection, and there is no clear definition of “isolated.” Streams, critical wetlands, and even tributaries to rivers have been included in the “isolated” category. Some of these waterways clearly impact waters downstream. The administration dumped the rulemaking plan due to overwhelming opposition from the public, but the directive is still in effect. On Earth Day 2004, Bush announced that he would begin to push beyond “no net loss” of wetlands and strive towards gaining wetlands. He pledged to “work to restore and to improve and to protect” 3 million acres of wetlands over the next 5 years. But his policy directive threatens 20 million acres.

We depend on wetlands to clean our water through natural filtration. Unmitigated development of these wetlands poses a serious health threat by allowing chemical and biological pollutants to enter the water supply. Indigenous wildlife can be choked out by excessive nutrients, sediment, and toxins. Water quality can be reduced to undrinkable. Yet last year the EPA and the Corps of Engineers approved a plan for the Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan to expand a phosphate mine in the Suwannee River watershed, which already suffers the effects of pollution. The plan action will destroy 4,000 acres of wetlands, which are known to provide habitat for bald eagles, the threatened indigo snake, and the endangered wood stork. The agencies contend that the ponds constructed to hold the clay slurry by-product of mining will negate the destruction of the natural wetlands, because they attract a more diverse set of wildlife. But they offer no proof that the new group of wildlife benefits the ecosystem. Aside from the fact that the mining expansion will result in the destruction of habitat, thousands of Florida residents depend on the Suwannee River watershed for drinking water.

Not only were protections lifted from critical water sources, but Bush’s EPA has been lax enforcing the protections that still exist. Only about 15 percent of all serious polluters are punished by the EPA. Less than half of the offenders end up paying fines that average $6,000.

In just 4 years we have seen 30 years of progressive policy crumble. If Kerry takes the title in November, he could spend the next 4 years fixing a fraction of what’s broken. If it’s Bush, we can expect more of the same.