How Will God's Creation Be Affected by
Pending Legislation and Regulations?
By Jaydee Hanson
This bulletin updates a number of issues discussed in earlier quarterlies,
including U.S. Forest Service regulations to weaken landmark environmental law,
the EPA's issuing of weak mercury regulations, the Senate decision to drill in
the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (but block "Clear Skies"), and
the review by the federal appeals court of the Bush Administration's climate
change policy.
New Forest Management Rules Would Exempt National Forests from Environmental
Review
April 14: Shortly after coming into office in 2001, the Bush Administration
ordered a rewrite of U.S. Forest Service regulations on management plans for
more than 100 national forests. In December 2004, the Forest Service issued new
management rules that would exempt national forest management plans from review
under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). (NEPA is generally the act
that is being referenced when someone makes note of an "environmental impact" statement.)
For more than 30 years, NEPA has protected the environment of our nation's
treasured natural places. The law requires federal agencies to study and publicly
disclose the environmental effects of their action. It also requires public input
on decisions that have environmental impact.
Logging companies have grown more and more opposed to this law, as it has
had the effect of limiting logging in the most sensitive habitats. Actions by
the Bush Administration indicate they believe that the Forest Service should
be freed from the requirements of NEPA as it relates to national forests. More
than 100 national forests have management plans scheduled for review by 2010,
thus the proposal would exempt from NEPA review a large amount of the land controlled
by the federal government. The exemption could affect millions of acres of land.
(This proposal comes on top of legislation from last year that exempted military
bases from many NEPA requirements.)
Forest management plans have significant impact on decisions regarding road
construction (national forests already have more miles of roads than the entire
federal highway system), logging, off-road vehicle travel in forests, and mining
in forest areas. Permitting amendments to be made to forest management
plans without NEPA review would prevent public review of the effects of road
building, mining activities, and logging on the ecology of our national forests.
Public comments on the new proposals were due by March 7, 2005. The Administration
is expected to issue the final rule in the spring. Public interest groups are
expected to file lawsuits if the rule prohibits the use of NEPA in forestry plan
revisions. The proposal is believed to violate both the spirit and letter
of the National Forest Management Act, which requires plans to comply with NEPA.
Mercury Pollution Rule
Last year, we reported on the problems of mercury pollution from coal-fired
power plants, and why the EPA should adopt a rule that would significantly cut
mercury pollution. The 216th General Assembly (2004) passed a resolution opposing
the change in requirements of emission from smoke stack industries and called
on the Stated Clerk to communicate this to government officials. The Assembly
also called on the Stated Clerk to include in his communication information about
the impact that smoke stack and tailpipe emissions is having on the health of
our most vulnerable populations and on our environment due to acid rain, smog,
increased ozone levels, and emissions of mercury and heavy metals.
The EPA has identified coal-fired power plants as the largest industrial sources
of mercury, producing more than one-third of all mercury pollution in the United
States. Coal- fired plants emit about 91,000 tons of this pollutant into the
air each year, but it has never been regulated despite being one of the most
toxic natural pollutants. Very low levels of mercury poisoning can cause profound
health effects. The Center for Disease Control found that as many as 640,000
children are born each year with mercury levels of more than 5.8 micrograms per
liter, the level needed for brain damage and a lower IQ.
On March 15, the EPA issued a rule that allows coal-fired power plants to
continue to pollute the air for more than 10 years. In 2000, the EPA had decided
to require the maximum achievable controls on power plants. Those rules would
have cut mercury pollution by 90 percent by 2008. The new rule overturns that
decision, and allows power plants to emit more than seven times as much mercury,
for 13 years longer than the current law would permit. Instead of issuing regulations
that speed up the cleanup of mercury pollution these rules slow down the cleanup
envisioned by the Clean Air Act.
On March 2, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee blocked action
on the Administration's "Clear Skies" proposal that would have changed
the law on mercury pollution, but it failed to block the EPA rule.
Meanwhile, the science continues to accumulate for compelling action to control
mercury pollution. Medical researchers at the Mt. Sinai School of Medicine found
that the cost of mental deficiencies caused by mercury pollution now tops $8.7
billion annually. Pediatricians at Mt. Sinai found that $1.3 billion of the damage
is directly caused by mercury from coal-fired power plants. (Mercury from power
plants falls into water sources, where it is absorbed by fish and then eaten
by women who pass the mercury onto their developing fetuses.) The
complete report  was
published in the online journal Environmental Health Perspectives, a journal
of NIH.
"Clear Skies" Bill Stalled in Senate Committee
The Bush Administration's "Clear Skies" bill- which would have weakened
the Clean Air Act and postponed deadlines for polluters to control toxic air
pollutants-has stalled in the Environment and Public Works Committee of the Senate.
Two Senators, Lincoln Chafee (R-RI) and Jim Jeffords (I-VT) joined the seven
committee Democrats to produce a 9-9 tie in committee. While the vote means that
the bill cannot be reported out of the Committee as a committee bill, Senate
Majority Leader Frist could, under Senate rules, bring the bill to the full Senate
for a floor vote, but that is considered unlikely.
House Considers Bill to Reverse EPA Sewage Rule
The Save Our Waters from Sewage Act (HR 1126), introduced in the House of
Representatives, would block the EPA from finalizing a rule to allow increased
sewage dumping, and instead force the EPA to implement the current Clean Water
Act. HR 1126 would also require the public to be notified when raw or poorly
treated sewage is dumped into our waters.
Millions of people in the United States get sick each year from swimming in
or drinking water that has had contact with inadequately treated sewage. Bacteria
and viruses in the sewage cause stomach, respiratory, and liver diseases. Especially
at risk from inadequately treated water are children, the elderly, and persons
with weakened immune systems. An outbreak of the pathogen cryptosporidium in
Milwaukee a decade ago killed nearly 200 persons. Millions of Americans suffer
sicknesses from polluted water each year.
The Clean Water Act requires that raw sewage be treated to remove dangerous
pathogens before it is discharged into streams and other water sources. The EPA
policy would allow raw sewage to be discharged into waterways whenever it rained.
Not just the hurricane-sized floods, but any rain would result in our streams,
lakes, and beaches becoming filled with sewage.
Senate Votes to Include Funds from Drilling in ANWR in the Budget
On March 15, after years of rejecting efforts to open the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge, the U.S. Senate voted 49-51 to defeat an amendment that would
have prevented drilling in the refuge. The deciding votes came from the two Democratic
Senators from Hawaii (who voted against the amendment by Senator Cantwell (D-WA)
to strip the funds from drilling in the Arctic from the Senate budget resolution).
This vote does not automatically open the reserve to drilling, as explicit
authorization for the drilling would need to pass as part of energy legislation
now being considered by the House and Senate. Unlike the budget resolution, other
legislative efforts to open the Arctic Refuge to drilling could be filibustered
in the Senate.
The Senate budget vote makes more likely the eventual opening of this wilderness
to oil drilling. However, for even the budget assumptions to go forward, both
the House and the Senate would have to agree to a budget resolution, something
that has not happened in recent years despite both houses of Congress being controlled
by the same party.
Ironically, the refuge is believed to contain relatively little oil compared
to the overall oil needs of the United States. The U.S. Geological Survey estimates
that the refuge contains only about six months supply of oil for the United States
and that it would not reach U.S. consumers until a decade or more after the exploration
started. Proponents claim that the oil exploration would disturb only 2,000
acres of wildlife habitat. Opponents point out that these 2,000 acres are spread
across the reserve and would be connected by miles of roads and pipelines. In
effect, they say that the development of the reserve would mean pipelines stretching
across vital wildlife habitat like a spiderweb. It is not the size of the web
that is the problem, but its impact on the entire refuge.
Climate Change Policy to be Decided by Federal Courts
In the meantime, on April 8, 2005, the U.S. District Court of Appeals heard
a case filed by the International Center on Technology Assessment and the attorneys
general of a number of states challenging EPA for not having regulated carbon
dioxide as a pollutant. In the absence of federal action to control the pollution
that causes global warming, many states are taking their own actions, but would
prefer federal action. The Clean Air Act specifically lists climate effects as
something that pollutants can be regulated to control. Most issues of technological
control of pollutants are referred to the District Court of Appeals. The court
is not expected to rule for several months. At that time, the issue will likely
be appealed by the losing side to the U.S. Supreme Court. For more information
on this case go to: http://www.icta.org. |
