Good 'Ol Dubya...

[squirrelgravy]

is at it again.

<b>Bush Administration Drafts Rule to Diminish Stream Protections </b>

WASHINGTON, DC, November 10, 2003 (ENS) - A new Bush administration Clean Water Act draft rule released Thursday would remove federal protections from ephemeral and intermittent streams that do not have groundwater as a source. The rule would remove Clean Water Act protections from nearly all waters in the southwestern United States, where most streams do not flow year round, but it would be felt from coast to coast, critics say.

Streams that flow for fewer than six months a year would lose protection from pollution and filling under the draft rule, as would the wetlands adjacent to them.

The change is proposed to the definition of waters of the United States as it relates to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under the Clean Water Act.

Under the new definition, tributary streams that flow into U.S. navigable waters would be protected from development and pollution only if they flow for six months of the year and are supplied by groundwater. Streams that are solely fed by rain or snow melt are not covered.

Federal protection would be removed for all wetlands adjacent to tributaries that flow less than six months a year or are not fed by groundwater.

The draft rule shows "a blatant disregard for law and science in favor of a free ride for industry when it comes to protecting America's water resources," according to Julie Sibbing, National Wildlife Federation (NWF) water policy specialist. It risks increased flooding, pollution and erosion and jeopardizes habitat and wildlife that support outdoor recreation, she said.

"Saying that streams must flow for at least six months to warrant Clean Water Act protection is like asking Americans to wear a seat belt only if they drive more than half the year. It takes only an instant for irreversible damage to occur," warned Sibbing.

Waters that are used in interstate commerce by recreational users, hunters, anglers, shellfishers and industry would be removed from Clean Water Act protection.

Under the draft rule, pollutants could be discharged into a pipe or culvert connecting two navigable water bodies without any safeguard for the health of people or the environment because pipes, certain drains, ditches and other connections between navigable waters and tributaries would be removed from federal protection.

"The administration's draft rule appears to respond to special interests' attempts to expand a 2001 U.S. Supreme Court ruling to remove federal Clean Water Act protection from many types of wetlands, streams and ponds," said Jim Murphy, NWF counsel for water and wetlands resources.

The Supreme Court's decision in Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. Army Corps of Engineers, known as the SWANCC decision, is a narrow ruling that applies exclusively to waters where the only claim to federal protection is that they are used by migratory birds, said Murphy.

The SWANCC ruling did not affect any federal regulations regarding the jurisdictional scope of the Clean Water Act. The nation's lower courts have "consistently and overwhelmingly" found that federal safeguards to protect these critical water resources remain in place, Murphy explained.

"This decision leaves no doubt that the Bush administration is willing to ignore case law when it comes to warping Clean Water Act protection policies so that they meet the needs of industry," said Murphy. "The elements of the draft rule fly in the face of lower court rulings and even those of the U.S. Supreme Court when it comes to safeguarding our nation's water resources."

[Larry Carter]

NWF is a major Greenie outfit. I'm not a GW fan but think through your sources there.

[squirrelgravy]

Regardless of NWF's position, it doesn't change the proposal.

[Larry Carter]

You read the proposal as written or just the short green version?? I have a problem with NWF---support wildlife but fight all forest management?? Not good for forests or wildlife.

[squirrelgravy]

Here's another organizations take on it, Delta Waterfowl this time...

November 14, 2003
&gt;
&gt; For immediate release from Delta Waterfowl
&gt;
&gt; Draft Proposal on CWA Wetland Protection
&gt; Would be Disastrous for Duck Production
&gt;
&gt; BISMARCK, ND--"If ever sportsmen wanted their voices to be heard, now's
the
&gt; time to speak out," says Rob Olson, director of US operations for Delta
&gt; Waterfowl.
&gt; Olson is referring to the Bush administration's draft proposal to exclude
&gt; seasonal and temporary wetlands from protection under the Clean Water
Act,
&gt; which was leaked last week to the Los Angeles Times.
&gt; "This is the most serious threat to ducks and duck hunters in a long
time,"
&gt; says Olson. "The administration's draft proposal would strip seasonal
and
&gt; temporary wetlands of protection under the Clean Water Act, and that
would
&gt; be devastating for duck production. Every year would be like a drought
on
&gt; the prairies, and no one has to tell duck hunters what happens when we
have
&gt; a drought."
&gt; Olson's comments mirror the reaction from conservation leaders across the
&gt; country. Julie Sibbing of the National Wildlife Federation said the
&gt; decision, "...has the potential to just devastate waterfowl populations
by
&gt; taking away habitat both on the breeding grounds as well as in wintering
&gt; areas."
&gt; Ron Reynolds of the US Fish and Wildlife Service's Bismarck office said,
&gt; "The prairie pothole region would lose 40 percent of its carrying
capacity
&gt; for nesting ducks. If the American people allow this to happen, they
must
&gt; not care about ducks."
&gt; Bob Marshall, outdoor writer for the New Orleans Times-Picayune wrote
that
&gt; the proposal is, "...worse for waterfowl and duck hunters than drought,
&gt; predators and anti-hunting groups combined."
&gt; The country's wetlands came under Clean Water Act protection in 1972, but
&gt; those protections were erased in 2001 when the US Supreme Court ruled
that
&gt; Congress never intended to protect isolated and non-navigable waters.
&gt; Rep. James Oberstar (D-MN) and Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) responded by
&gt; introducing the Clean Water Authority Restoration Act, which would have
&gt; clarified Congress' original intent, but that bill has been tied up in
&gt; committee and has little hope of coming to a vote.
&gt; The Corps of Engineers issues permits to drain wetlands, and in an effort
&gt; to provide guidance for the Corps the administration turned to the
&gt; rulemaking process. The draft rule was leaked to the LA Times last week
was
&gt; even worse than conservationists had originally feared.
&gt; According to the draft, only wetlands that "provide regular and
continuous
&gt; flow of surface waters" qualify for CWA protection.
&gt; "The proposal eliminates protection for the seasonal and temporary
wetlands
&gt; that are the engine that drives duck production," says Olson. "According
to
&gt; some modeling done by the Fish and Wildlife Service, if we lose our
seasonal
&gt; and temporary wetlands, duck hunters could be looking at closed or
severely
&gt; restricted seasons down the road.
&gt; "Sportsmen demonstrated their clout in the last presidential election
when
&gt; they threw their support behind successful pro-gun candidates," says
Olson.
&gt; "The right to keep and bear arms is important, but maintaining the
habitat
&gt; necessary to raise ducks and other wildlife is critical too. I hope
&gt; sportsmen will contact their Congressional delegations and urge them to
&gt; fight for our wetlands and waterways.
&gt; "The rulemaking process doesn't require Congressional approval," says
Olson,
&gt; "but hopefully if enough sportsmen make their feelings known, lawmakers
will
&gt; deliver the message to the White House."
&gt;
&gt; For more information, contact John Devney at 1-888-987-3695.

[Pooge]

This is not news people. Our waterways are horribly polluted as it is now. Regardless of how you feel about forest management this is an issue that needs to be addressed. I would just a soon eat goldfish from an outhouse than eat fish from 90% of the streams in this state. (and thats being liberal) Pollution rules need to be tightened, not relaxed.

[perrymax]

Maybe Howard Dean or one of the other libs will when next year.They'll fix this!!!They'll get the sierra club to help them out and solve all these problems!!!Of course,with them you also get Handgun Control,PETA,The Humane Society and every other hairy legged woman organization in NY and CA.[xx(]

I'll stick with George!!!!

[yotekiller]

Yeah perry,if you listen to most of these flag burning liberals,you know the gay marriage types,you'd think MR. BUSH was wanting to poison all our water and rid our hunting grounds of every thing but drilling rigs.


LONG LIVE BUSH!!!!!!

go back to france or england squirrel,i think you left you'r nuts there.

[squirrelgravy]

classy yotekiller, classy.[V] It's sad that you can't put an opinion out there without being a "flag burning liberal"...which I'm not, I also do not support gay marriage, and I know full well where my nuts are. I hunt and fish as much as anyone on this site, I do however, happen to also care about the environment, especially when the topic in question impacts all hunters. Grow up yote, your post points to your true character, and that is not the character I'd prefer the anti's see.

[Larry Carter]

Guys--This sort of stuff bothers me. I've seen some good hunting sites ruined with what I'd call "Bush Mania". I hunt,fish,work on sportsmen's issues, and several other activities. It's nice to have a President and Atttorney General not actively campaigning against hunters/shooters but some enviromental concern is important too.
Despite what is the prevailing opinion on Hunting sites, Bush is not God and wasn't appointed by God. He's a guy with a tough job that can be evaluated as to performance in twenty years or so.

[yotekiller]

Dear squirrel,

I'm sure that any&all anti's would have never looked twice at a discussion topic headed as GOOD 'OL DUBYA so i'm not concerned with my response building ranks among the anti crowd,You asked for it.Some people find it difficult to let a good discussion over the enviroment be biased from the start by slapping a decent man in the face.President Bush has had to deal with the biggest problems ever to face this great country,and apparently he is determined to stop even
deadlier problems from arising,unlike slick willy and the wake up calls he never answered.I'm doing some research on you'r articles so i can form my opinion,but thanks for leaning me toward Bush,he hasn't disappointed me yet.

Larry the discussion boards you speak of were apparently weak in the knees if they couldn't handle political disagreements,the kind that any sportsman should be full willing to join in on. Bush is not God for sure,i'm not so sure that the good Lord didn't appoint him though!

[perrymax]

Right on yote!!Algore probobly would have tried to feel the terorists pain!!![:(!]You know , it has to be Americas fault if these people don't like us!W is determined to show these people that we mean business!!That, is exactly what we've needed for the last 10 years.These people have got to where they are because of weak leadership in the past!!!

[broadside]

I heard Howard Dean, on tv with Ted Kopil and the other dems, say that he supports state led gun control, let the states decide what is best for them and take it out of the feds hands. Just thought I would give you dems something to think about.
As far as the water pollution bill goes, these Bills are usuallly give and take. Maybe not, but there might have been alot of positve changes in there that the anti-Bush people don't want to talk about.
I didn't want to do this but I am anyway. The previous administration had no environmental, energy, or home land security policys. Clinton sat back and let Saddam spit in his face for 8 years and it was well known that Bin ladden was resonsible for the embassys and the ship in Yemen. How many military bases were shut down during the previous administration. I'm real sick of hearing the dems saying how embarrased the president should be with these policys. Never have I seen the lack of respect that the current dem "frontrunners" are showing for the President of the United States of America. They ought to be ashamed.
The economy. All the people in my area that lost jobs over the last few years, their jobs went to Mexico and the Mexicans came here to take their jobs because a growing percentage of people are too damn onry to work.
The dems aren't going to win by slamming Bush, they need to listen to what the people want. Lower taxes, no gay marriage, no gun control and a military that puts boots in asses.
I'm not trying to offend anyone here just giving my opinion[:D]

CAIN'T HAVE NOTHIN

[grouseguy]

broadside,

I'm not going to enter into a pissing match with you on this, but I do want to express that I consider myself to be just as much of a freedom loving, pro-gun American as yourself, and I have basically a polar opposite opinion of current affairs as you express.

[Larry Carter]

[:)] GG well said. Maybe America's downfall will be narrow minds---not party affiliation.

[GSP]

I recieved this yesterday....


President Meets with Conservation Community Leaders
Top Priorities Discussed at the White House

NEWS RELEASE
December 12, 2003
Contact: George Cooper
(202) 508-3421


Washington - President George W. Bush along with Interior Secretary Gale Norton and Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman met with Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership Chairman Jim Range and representatives from several of the country’s leading hunting and angling organizations Friday at the White House. The meeting was called in part to thank those in the group who had supported the President’s Healthy Forest Initiative which he signed into law as the Healthy Forest Restoration Act on November 21. The meeting also provided an opportunity for the President to address issues that the sporting community has recently identified as top priority conservation concerns.

On November 24, Range and leaders from several of the groups represented at the White House today held talks with Interior Secretary Norton to clearly identify top consensus policy concerns in the view of American hunters and anglers. Today the President and his top Cabinet officials addressed those concerns: continued conservation of the nation’s wetlands, protection of the nation’s fish and wildlife habitat while expanding energy development on federal lands, better federal funding of wildlife programs, and increased access to land for hunting, fishing and other outdoor recreation.

The President focused in particular on wetlands and energy development. The Administration is currently considering whether a recent Supreme Court ruling requires adjustments to provisions in the Clean Water Act that provide protections for millions of acres of wetlands and thousands of small lakes and ponds. President Bush acknowledged the importance of wetlands to fish and wildlife and pledged to work with the sporting community in determining whether new regulations are created. For over 30 years, the current wetlands protections in the Clean Water Act have served to shield one of the most vital habitats in the United States.

Regarding expanded energy development on federal land in the Rocky Mountain west, the President expressed a determination to develop a policy that is sensitive to the abundant fish and wildlife in that area. The TRCP and its partner organizations have offered to help federal officials design policies for new exploration and drilling that have the least negative impact on native trout, elk, mule deer, pronghorn and sage grouse. President Bush welcomed this and expressed a desire to get direct input from the conservation and sporting community.

The frank and substantive meeting with President Bush was one of several recent signs that the Administration is interested in working with the sporting community on the top conservation priorities of the nation’s hunters and anglers. After the meeting, TRCP’s Range said "there are issues of major importance to hunters and anglers in play right now in Washington. This President understands the issues and why we are concerned about them."

Among the organizations represented at the meeting were the American Sportfishing Association, BASS, the Boone and Crockett Club, the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation, Ducks Unlimited, the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the National Wild Turkey Federation, Pheasants Forever, the Ruffed Grouse Society, Safari Club International, the Wildlife Management Institute and the National Rifle Association.

[broadside]

Hey grouse and Larry, this is what makes America great. We can disagree without strapping on bombs or rolling tanks down main street. I respect your opinions.


CAIN'T HAVE NOTHIN

[GSP]

Looks like consevation organizations still make a difference!!!!
Got this today.

Press Release
For Immediate Release
December 16, 2003
For more information contact:
George Cooper, (202) 508-3421

Bush Administration Stands By "No Net Loss" of Wetlands
EPA and Army Corps of Engineers Won’t Issue New Rule
WASHINGTON, DC - The Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership welcomed good news from the Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers today regarding some of the most important wildlife habitat in North America. The EPA and the Corps announced they will not issue a new rule ceding federal Clean Water Act jurisdiction over isolated wetlands. The Bush Administration had been weighing whether it needed to issue such a rule on federal regulatory jurisdiction over isolated wetlands in light of the Supreme Court’s so-called SWANCC ruling in 2001.

Ever since that ruling, the conservation community has urged continued federal protection of a habitat that migratory birds in particular rely so heavily on. The TRCP and its partner organizations have sought to bring that message directly to federal decision-makers in a concerted and constructive form. Recently the Bush Administration has reached out to the conservation community and offered to listen.

On Monday, November 24, the TRCP helped coordinate a meeting between leaders of several hunting, angling and conservation groups and Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton and her top staff. The isolated wetlands issue was a focus of that meeting and was soon followed up on in a White House meeting with President Bush just this past Friday, December 12th. At that meeting, the President clearly acknowledged the importance of protecting wetlands. His willingness to listen that day and consider the recommendations of the conservation community has led to a good decision for fish and wildlife. The EPA and Department of Interior, by engaging with the TRCP and other conservation groups, has ensured that the voices of millions of hunters and anglers who want to see wetlands protection continued, were heard.

The TRCP’s Chairman Jim Range was an architect of the wetlands protections in the Clean Water Act when he was counsel to the Senate’s Committee on the Environment and Public Works in the 1970’s. Range applauded today’s decision saying "it is hard overestimate how vital wetlands are to the overall health of American wildlife. By clearly stating today that there will continue to be no net loss of wetlands, the President has given Americans who care about fish and wildlife a big reason to smile."

President Bush’s father, former President George H. W. Bush put forth the pledge of ensuring that there is "no net loss" of wetlands in the United States. It’s a pledge that fish and wildlife advocates have held fast to as being vitally necessary. We thank the President for standing by this pledge.

For more on the wetlands issue, visit TRCP's wetlands page.

To read the official Environment Protection Agency and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers press release, click here.

&lt;&lt; back to main press room page






Join TRCP today for your chance to WIN the elk hunt of a lifetime —
It's free!.

[broadside]

GOOD OL' DUBYA

CAIN'T HAVE NOTHIN

[perrymax]

It's just hard for me to understand how you can hunt, shoot,own guns, go to church, believe in personal responcibility,etc.and support Democrats? Maybe I'm missing something. I grew up and have lived in rural Ky all my life and most people are registered Democrat but never vote for a Democrat. Democrats like Wendal Ford just don't exist outside of local politics anymore. The party is run by NY and California liberals.They are against everything,that everybody I know,believes in.

The #1 contributer to the democratic party is trial lawyers.That says alot!

[Highbow]

I am a registered Democrat but I take pride in the facts that I have the abilities to resaon what I feel is right from wrong without checking to see how someone is registered. I don't blame all deer hunters for poaching, nor do I blame all republicans for higher tax. If we can start putting basic stuff back together then maybe the rest will improve.