|
Court slams EPA over water pollution
permits - Says it didn't consider effect on endangered species when
giving AZ authority to issue permits.
(Note: There is so much Language Deception herein -- in the article as
well as the players involved -- that deciphering it is almost
impossible. The main thrust appears to be that those implementing The
Wildlands Project are using the old sideshow barker shell game to take
more and ever more property rights, thus hamstringing responsible
development and resource providers. The intent is to stop ALL that is
deemed to be "water pollution" -- until all Control of
water, land and people is in the hands of a select few. Never mind
that responsible use of resources is considered "possibly"
harmful to species that are questionably listed as
"endangered" in the first place.)
August 25, 2005 By Larry Copenhaver, The Tucson Citizen lcopenha@tucsoncitizen.com
Tucson, Arizona
To submit a Letter to the Editor: letters@tucsoncitizen.com
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency was wrong when it transferred
authority to issue water-pollution permits to the state of Arizona
without considering the effect on endangered species, a federal
appeals court ruled.
The EPA held that it did not have the authority to consider effects on
endangered wildlife and habitat when it transferred authority to the
state in 2002, according to an opinion issued Monday by a three-judge
panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Authority to issue permits to discharge pollutants into waterways has
reverted to the EPA.
"Federal agencies shouldn't be able to dodge their obligations to
protect endangered
species by delegating important decision to the states," said
David Hogan, director of the Urban Wildlands Program for the Center
for Biological Diversity.
"The state doesn't have the authority to protect endangered
species the way the feds do."
The decision came in a 2004 lawsuit against the EPA filed by Defenders
of Wildlife, the Center for Biological Diversity and activist Craig
Miller.
The decision revokes the EPA's 2002 decision to transfer Clean Water
Act authority to the state of Arizona, according to Hogan, who lives
in San Diego.
Its action "did an end-run around the Endangered Species Act and
transferred that authority to the state to avoid considering the
effects on endangered species," Hogan said.
The plaintiffs argued the EPA's decision could
harm species listed as endangered, particularly the Southwestern
willow flycatcher, Pima pineapple cactus, Huachuca water umbel, cactus
ferruginous pygmy owl, "and perhaps
other species," court documents said.
EPA officials were not available for comment yesterday afternoon.
"It doesn't really matter whether it's the federal government
that oversees the protection of endangered species and open space
conservation or the state," Hogan said.
"What matters is that whoever has that authority take seriously
an interest in wildlife conservation."
The state wasn't doing a very good job, he said.
Copyright 2005, The Tucson Citizen. |