Two Agencies Criticized Revision of Permit Laws
Washington Post | January 15, 2002 | By Michael Grunwald, Washington Post Staff Writer
The Bush administration yesterday weakened several rules designed to protect thousands of streams, swamps and other wetlands from destruction through the Clean Water Act, despite opposition to the changes from two of its own environmental agencies.
The changes announced yesterday by the Army Corps of Engineers -- with approval from the White House -- will make it somewhat easier for developers, mining companies and others to qualify for nearly automatic "general permits" to dredge and fill wetlands.
The revisions do not loosen the standards quite so far as a plan the Corps had floated last spring, but they do roll back several restrictions imposed by the Clinton administration in March 2000.
President Bush has pledged in no uncertain terms to protect the nation's wetlands, which serve as kitchens and nurseries for wildlife and help filter water and reduce floods for people.
Corps officials yesterday echoed their commitment to a goal of "no net loss" of wetlands -- a goal initially set by the first President Bush -- vowing that their permit revisions would reduce bureaucracy and paperwork without diminishing environmental protections.
"When we don't review projects with minimal effects on the environment, we have more time to focus on projects that really do have an impact," said John Studt, chief of the Corps regulatory program, which awards more than 80,000 permits to fill wetlands every year.
The Environmental Protection Agency had filed formal comments criticizing the Corps plan for lacking a scientific basis. And as The Post first reported yesterday, the Fish and Wildlife Service had drafted even more critical comments predicting "tremendous destruction of aquatic and terrestrial habitat," but Interior Secretary Gale A. Norton never submitted them to the Corps.
After negotiations with the White House Council on Environmental Quality, the Corps agreed to strengthen a few of its proposals to enhance protection of valuable streams and emphasize the agency's commitment to no-net-loss. But the rest of its plan remained intact.
Environmental activists complained yesterday that Bush administration officials were stepping up their rhetorical commitment to no-net-loss even as they were abandoning the nation's actual commitment. They accused the administration of selling out, noting that several officials involved in creating rules governing mining operations have previous ties to mining interests. And they warned that in place of strict rules requiring minimal impacts for every general permit and mitigation for every degraded wetland, the revisions leave much to the discretion of Corps engineers, who are not renowned for their eco-sensitivity.
"This is faith-based environmental protection," said Daniel Rosenberg, an attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council's Clean Water Project. "I doubt the president's State of the Union address will highlight the increased water pollution, worsened flooding and loss of wildlife habitat we can expect from this new wetlands policy."
Administration officials portrayed yesterday's announcement as the fruit of compromise. For example, the initial Corps plan eliminated the Clinton-era rule requiring developers to seek more onerous "individual permits" for all projects affecting more than 300 feet of streams. Now the Corps has restored the rule but only for year-round streams.
Similarly, the Clinton administration had slashed the maximum damage allowed by general permits from three acres of wetlands to a half-acre; the Bush administration is maintaining the lower limit for residential developments, but not for commercial developments.
And while developers will no longer be required to replace an acre of wetlands for every acre they destroy, Corps districts will be required to achieve a 1-1 ratio for their entire permit programs. Corps officials also promised to do a better job ensuring that those mitigation requirements are actually enforced, a perennial problem identified by several federal studies.
Susan Asmus, a vice president of the National Association of Home Builders, described the changes as a modest but welcome improvement. The builders sued to try to stop the Clinton administration's stricter rules, a suit that is pending.
"We're happy the Corps has not taken the opportunity to clamp down further," Asmus said. "To the extent that they're reducing some of the excessive burdens, that's good."
Environmental groups were angriest about rules allowing the Corps to continue to issue general permits for coal mines in Appalachia, including "mountaintop removal" operations that often fill in entire valleys.
Michael Parker, the assistant Army secretary who oversees the Corps and approved the new rules, until recently lobbied for CSX Corp., a company that benefits directly from mountaintop removal.
Deputy Interior Secretary J. Steven Griles and Interior counselor Ann Klee, the two Norton aides involved in the controversy over the Fish and Wildlife Service's missing comments, also represented mining interests in the past.
"The Corps says that blowing up forested mountains and dumping massive amounts of waste into streams has only a minimal adverse effect on the environment," said Howard Fox, managing attorney for Earthjustice, a nonprofit environmental law firm. "I do not want to see what they would consider a major impact."Two Agencies Criticized Revision of Permit LawsWashington Post:
