WorkerSafetyCollage_wide.jpg
Jan. 28, 2009 by Holly Doremus

More Accusations of Politics Trumping Science and Law at Interior

Cross-posted from Environment & Law.

 

The Washington Post reports that officials at the Department of Interior ignored “key scientific findings” and the views of National Park Service officials “when they limited water flows in the Grand Canyon to optimize generation of electric power there, risking damage to the ecology of the spectacular national landmark.” The Post story, written by Juliet Eilperin and based in part on documents provided by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, describes a power struggle within Interior between the Bureau of Reclamation and the National Park Service, with the Bureau prevailing and the Service told to keep its criticisms of the plan and the supporting environmental assessment to itself.

 

This is far from the first criticism of the Bush-era Interior Department’s use of science or implementation of environmental law. It’s especially troubling, however, because since passage of the 1992 Grand Canyon Protection Act management of Colorado River flows below Glen Canyon Dam has been touted as the premier example of science-driven adaptive management. If even this flagship program was subordinated to political pressure from extractive interests (in this case the hydropower utilities) its hard to imagine that anything was spared.

Jan. 20, 2009 by Holly Doremus
WorkerSafetyCollage_wide.jpg

Editor's Note: With the Bush Administration's remaining time in office now measured in hours, we asked CPR Member Scholars to remind us of some of the less publicized moments of the Administration's record on environmental issues. Following is the fourth of several entries published before President Bush returns to Texas. In this one, Holly Doremus takes up the issue of exempting water transfers between water bodies from Clean Water Act protections.

 

In its eight years in power, the administration of George W. Bush delivered numerous blows to the environment. One that has not gotten attention in proportion to its environmental importance is a rule issued in June 2008 exempting water transfers from the permitting requirements of the Clean Water Act.

 

Clean Water Act permits, which are required for discharges of pollutants from point sources to the waters of the United States, are supposed to …

CPR HOMEPAGE
More on CPR's Work & Scholars.
Oct. 23, 2013

Mass. v. EPA bears fruit for environmental petitioners

May 20, 2013

What's holding up the Clean Water Act jurisdictional guidance?

May 20, 2013

What's holding up the Clean Water Act jurisdictional guidance?

Dec. 14, 2012

Jane Lubchenco's Legacy at NOAA

Nov. 30, 2012

What to Expect in the Logging Roads Case

Nov. 29, 2012

Should We Revive an Extinct Galapagos Tortoise?

Nov. 20, 2012

More on BP's Guilty Plea: It's Not Just About the Money