rssWaxman Report: EPA ‘Decimated’ Clean Water Act
Tuesday, December 16, 2008 at 6:09 pm
- 11 Comments
California Rep. Henry Waxman (D) might be headed for the chairmanship of the House energy committee, but not before he gets a final shot at the Bush administration from atop the oversight panel.
A report released today from Waxman’s office — a joint effort with the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, headed by Rep. James Oberstar (D-Minn.) — found that the Environmental Protection Agency has shown a lax interest in enforcing the Clean Water Act in recent years, leading to hundreds of instances when investigations have been neglected and waterways have been threatened. From Waxman’s statement:
Our investigation reveals that the clean water program has been decimated as hundreds of enforcement cases have been dropped, downgraded, delayed, or never brought in the first place. We need to work with the new Administration to restore the effectiveness and integrity to this vital program.
The controversy surrounds a 2006 Supreme Court ruling on the Clean Water Act (Rapanos v. United States), which restricted traditional interpretations of the law by requiring the EPA and other federal agencies to show that a waterway is a “significant nexus” to “traditional navigable waters” before officials can apply the environmental protections under the act. Following the Bush administration’s interpretation of that vague ruling, Waxman found, the EPA has whitewashed hundreds of potential violations.
The effects, according to the findings, are nationwide. The EPA branch in Dallas, for example, reported in January that it had 76 cases of confirmed oil spills, “but no follow-up for penalties or corrective action has been sought due to difficulties asserting jurisdiction post-Rapanos.”
That same month, officials in the EPA’s Denver office sent notice to the agency’s headquarters that, “We literally have hundreds of OPA [Oil Pollution Act] cases in our ‘no further action’ file due to the Rapanos decision, most of which are oil spill cases.”
Another example: Last February, an official in the EPA’s San Francisco office announced that the agency was abandoning a case against a potential Clean Water Act violator, explaining the reason thusly:
It is time to pull the plug on keeping this case on life support. With the march of time largely attributable to the impact on the case by Senor Rapanos and his merry band of supreme court justices we had lost many many violations due to statute of limitations . . . . So we will withdraw the referral, and save our ammo for another fight.
Also a subject of the Democrats’ consternation, the EPA redacted many of the documents it provided to the committees — or simply refused to provide them at all. From a summary of the report:
EPA refused to produce hundreds of documents to the Committees and redacted many of the documents it did produce. EPA concealed the identity of corporations and individuals accused of polluting waters and the specific waters that may have been affected.
Waxman and Oberstar also sent the findings to President-elect Barack Obama, complete with a request “to restore the effectiveness and integrity” of the enforcement program.
The first step in that process occurred yesterday, when Obama named Lisa Jackson — former head of New Jersey’s Dept. of Environmental Protection — to lead the EPA next year. In the wake of the mess left behind by current EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson, environmentalists are ecstatic over the thought of the imminent change.
Indeed, the Sierra Club issued a statement yesterday saying Jackson “brings a strong scientific background to an agency where for the past eight years science and knowledge have been systematically corrupted and disregarded.”
Ouch.
11 Comments
Comment posted December 16, 2008 @ 6:33 pm
The Sierra Club's statement is funny. Lets hear for science! The Obama administration might actually base findings of a scientific agency on scientific fact, what a concept!
Comment posted December 17, 2008 @ 5:28 am
You might want to pass on to your colleague, Spencer Ackerman (I heard him use the word on Rachel Maddow's AirAmerica show Monday night), this note: the word “decimate” means, in essence, “to destroy a tenth of.” It originally and certainly still does to me refer to a group or population, like an army that is decimated. Literally, to destroy one in ten. Think “decimal.” Its meaning has eroded over the years just as the word “impact” has turned from a noun into a vowel. I kind of like knowing the underlying origin of meaning of words and get a big kick out of it — thought you would, too. I gave up long ago on trying to preserve rules of syntax, correct vocabulary and grammar, and instead I just sit by and quietly amuse myself by hearing people say things they don't realize they're saying.
Comment posted December 17, 2008 @ 6:53 am
You're certainly right that “decimate” is probably misused more often than not, but that's not the case here. Waxman is pointing to hundreds of investigative cases — out of thousands — that were hindered by the administration's interpretation of the Rapanos ruling. That seems to fit the definition pretty well.
Comment posted December 17, 2008 @ 12:35 pm
I hope this changes under the Obama adminstration. One of the problems is the lack of funding for enforcement personnel also.
Comment posted December 17, 2008 @ 12:58 pm
When poorly written pieces fail to give at least a little of the other side to the story, it usually means there's another side to the story. For example, what has Congress done with respect to funding – particularly in the last 2 years.
Comment posted December 17, 2008 @ 2:27 pm
I am sick and tired about the degree to which corporate criminals have f*cked up this planet!
Comment posted December 17, 2008 @ 3:31 pm
Actually, the quote is “the clean water program has been decimated as hundreds of enforcement cases have been dropped.” If you consider “the clean water program” to consist only of “hundreds of … cases,” or to number of employees, then, yes the hundreds of cases would be decimated by decreasing them by 1/10. However, I think the intent was to refer to the program as a whole, not only to a given number such as the number of cases. Therefore under the traditional definition, the usage is wrong. Not wrong under some dictionaries' definitions, but definitely under the traditional definition. Perhaps I should have been more precise in my definition and point out that decimate refers originally to decrease by one tenth in the number of people, items, rather than the size of a singular noun such as a group. I'm just nitpicking, but I believe I'm right … I'd love to see you show me why I wrong, given my definition. I grant that your definition may be more modern and less traditional! I do love to argue.
Comment posted December 17, 2008 @ 8:35 pm
I hope this changes under the Obama adminstration. One of the problems is the lack of funding for enforcement personnel also.
Comment posted December 17, 2008 @ 8:58 pm
When poorly written pieces fail to give at least a little of the other side to the story, it usually means there's another side to the story. For example, what has Congress done with respect to funding – particularly in the last 2 years.
Comment posted December 17, 2008 @ 10:27 pm
I am sick and tired about the degree to which corporate criminals have f*cked up this planet!
Comment posted December 17, 2008 @ 11:31 pm
Actually, the quote is “the clean water program has been decimated as hundreds of enforcement cases have been dropped.” If you consider “the clean water program” to consist only of “hundreds of … cases,” or to number of employees, then, yes the hundreds of cases would be decimated by decreasing them by 1/10. However, I think the intent was to refer to the program as a whole, not only to a given number such as the number of cases. Therefore under the traditional definition, the usage is wrong. Not wrong under some dictionaries' definitions, but definitely under the traditional definition. Perhaps I should have been more precise in my definition and point out that decimate refers originally to decrease by one tenth in the number of people, items, rather than the size of a singular noun such as a group. I'm just nitpicking, but I believe I'm right … I'd love to see you show me why I wrong, given my definition. I grant that your definition may be more modern and less traditional! I do love to argue.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
