Article

2009-12-16 Science & Technology

I've never seen this professional (supposedly non-partisan) newsletter mention a private citizen like this before (AlBore's shenanigans gets reported on, but he's a politician). Beck must have a whole lot of panties in a wad.... :-D
Efforts by Democrats and environmentalists to clarify the scope of the Clean Water Act are facing some new hurdles after controversial conservative talk show host Glenn Beck blasted the legislation, the latest salvo against the bill from right-wing media outlets.

In a Dec. 11 segment on his show, Beck said pending legislation to clarify the law's scope is misguided. "Congress is moving toward changing government jurisdiction over water," he says. "They just want to make a couple of, just a couple of words, just gonna nudge . . . a couple of words out of there. Navigable waters? Yeah they're going to change that with 'waters of the United States' because who uses the word 'navigable' any more?" Beck says.

Beck is targeting pending legislation that aims to codify the scope of the water law EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers had been using before two key Supreme Court decisions ruled the agencies had stretched the law too far. EPA officials, environmentalists and others have said the legal uncertainty created by the rulings has stymied enforcement of the law, undermining water quality. To address this, the Obama administration and environmentalists are calling on Congress to pass legislation clarifying the law's scope. Many favor removing the word "navigable" from the law's definition of jurisdictional waters.

But Beck and other conservative media outlets are increasingly concerned such an approach would significantly expand federal oversight. The Washington Times noted in a recent editorial editorial that removing the word "navigable" from the CWA's definition of "waters" means "any backyard fish pond or birdbath, any swimming pool or even a piece of low ground that is prone to forming puddles after rains, could be subject to the dictates of bureaucrats at the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers."

Proponents of the bill say such criticisms are are inaccurate. But the high profile controversy shows the legislation is becoming even more polarized, which could make it more difficult to pass in 2010, an election year. Nevertheless, House transportation committee Chairman James Oberstar (D-MN) vowed recently that he will seek to move the legislation next year after he abandoned plans to move the bill in 2009.

But Beck has scored some successes against the administration's environmental protection efforts when earlier this year his criticisms forced the ouster of White House green jobs czar Van Jones.
Mods: No link - from proprietary newsletter; couldn't find an open source. The story gave a link to his 12/11 show, but I couldn't figure out how to reproduce it here. Sorry.

Then give us the name of the newsletter and the issue date/number. That way people can find it in the public library, should they be so inclined.

Posted by Barbara Skolaut 2009-12-16 11:06|| || Front Page|| [9 views ] Top

#1 Got news for ya, Glenn: Army Corps already uses the "waters of the US" language in all of their dealings. I work for my state's DOT, and anytime we work in a stream channel with intermittent water flow, the Corps claims it is in their jurisdiction. This is even sometimes true for concrete-lined drainage ditches. No one considers those navigable, but they are still waters of the US, says the Corps, thus requiring permits and mitigation. A real pain, I can tell youse. Removing the word navigable won't change the way the Corps does business, it'll just reduce nagging questions from those pesky inquisitive citizens.

Posted by abu Chuck al Ameriki 2009-12-16 18:29|| 2009-12-16 18:29|| Front Page Top

#2 abu Chuck - that's true for tributaries to navigable, but the new laws are for isolated bodies of water which NEVER connect to navigable waters, cross no state boundaries and are not part of interstate commerce, IIUC, which is a naked power grab. Most states already have clean water boards or fish & game depts which already have jurisdictions. I oppose a Federal agency intervening without rationale in state's rights to have jursdiction

Posted by Frank G 2009-12-16 18:33|| 2009-12-16 18:33|| Front Page Top

#3 "Then give us the name of the newsletter and the issue date/number. That way people can find it in the public library, should they be so inclined."

Thanks, tw - I'll try to remember to do that in the future. (I don't have access to it tonight.)

Posted by Barbara Skolaut 2009-12-16 20:12|| 2009-12-16 20:12|| Front Page Top

22:12 Skidmark
22:04 Skidmark
22:03 Skidmark
21:51 DooDahMan
21:36 Silentbrick
20:43 Whiskey Mike
18:49 Frank G
18:43 3dc
18:07 swksvolFF
18:04 swksvolFF
17:35 Procopius2k
17:13 Elmerert Hupens2660
16:46 Crusader
16:43 Crusader
15:52 Silentbrick
15:49 Alistaire Platypus7674
15:43 swksvolFF
15:30 Grom the Reflective
15:28 Grom the Reflective
15:21 badanov
14:57 Elmerert Hupens2660
14:52 bman
14:52 trailing wife
14:39 Lord Garth