No subject
Fri Oct 12 15:41:10 EDT 2007
EPA gives Army Corps green light to dump toxic sludge
by James M. Taylor
The Army Corps of Engineers should be allowed to continue dumping =
toxic sludge into the Potomac
River, according to an Environmental Protection Agency document, =
because the sludge encourages
fish to flee the area and its resident fishermen.
The discovery of this document by the National Wilderness Institute =
during research for its ongoing
lawsuit against EPA caused an uproar on Capitol Hill during June 19 =
congressional hearings on the
issue.
EPA has come under fire for allowing the Corps to dump 200,000 tons =
of toxic sludge into the
Potomac River every year. The sludge is dumped near spawning =
grounds for the endangered
shortnose sturgeon, allegedly in violation of the Endangered =
Species Act (ESA) and Clean Water Act.
The Corps began dumping the sludge into the C&O Canal National Park =
and Potomac River in 1989. A
permit issued by EPA allowed the toxic discharges from 1989 to =
1993. Although the permit was never
renewed, the Corps was allowed to continue its dumping operations =
through this year. A new permit
was issued in March 2002.
Evasive maneuvers
According to an unnamed author of the EPA document, "It is not in =
my view a ridiculous possibility
that our discharge actually protects the fish in that they are not =
inclined to bite (and get eaten by
humans), but they go ahead with their upstream movement and egg =
laying."
The document, produced in 1998 and clearly stamped "EPA," instructs =
officials on talking points
related to the toxic dumping. Specifically, it encourages =
government officials to focus less on the
possibility that dumping is killing fish, and more on assertions =
that the sturgeon can evade the sludge
on their way to spawning grounds.
"To suggest that toxic sludge is good for fish because it prevents =
them from being caught by man is
like suggesting that we club baby seals to death to prevent them =
from being eaten by sharks. It's
ludicrous," said Rep. George Radanovich (R-California), chairman of =
the House Subcommittee on
National Parks, Recreation and Public Lands.
"This is one of the most frightening examples of bureaucratic =
ineptitude and backward logic I have
ever seen," Radanovich said.
Raising additional concerns, the document appeared to be authored =
by the Army Corps of Engineers,
which is being regulated by EPA on the matter. "That is even more =
problematic," stated Rob Gordon,
director of the National Wilderness Institute. "What is the Corps =
doing offering advice on [EPA] letters
going out regarding their activities?"
An EPA spokesperson countered it is not unusual for the agency to =
give a draft to "various
stakeholders involved in the process."
An "environmental disaster"
On June 18, Radanovich sent a letter to the White House asking the =
Bush administration to clean up
the "environmental disaster" it inherited.
"Some of the same EPA officials who decided not to forbid the =
dumping are still committed to giving
special treatment to this plant. Their intransigence now threatens =
to link your administration to the
indefensible notion that Washington, DC, should be exempt from the =
environmental laws that are
enforced throughout the country," Radanovich wrote.
"The strength of the ESA is that it gives power and control to =
government bureaucrats and serves to
enlarge the federal estate," observed Kathleen Benedetto, the =
National Wilderness Institute's program
director, in a recent interview with Environment & Climate News. =
"The weakness is that it drives a
wedge between people and species, putting both at risk."
National Wilderness Institute spokespersons expressed confidence =
they will be successful in their
efforts to reverse the Army Corps dumping policy, either through =
Congress or through the courts.
------=_NextPart_000_0033_01C24E7B.EDBC9BE0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2712.300" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff background=3D"">
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><EM>From Environment & Climate =
News, August=20
2002, available at </EM></FONT><A=20
href=3D"http://www.heartland.org/environment/aug02/sludge.htm"><FONT =
face=3DArial=20
size=3D2><EM>http://www.heartland.org/environment/aug02/sludge.htm</EM></=
FONT></A><BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><FONT size=3D4><STRONG>EPA gives Army =
Corps green=20
light to dump toxic sludge</STRONG></FONT><BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><EM>by James M. =
Taylor</EM><BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> The Army Corps =
of=20
Engineers should be allowed to continue dumping toxic sludge into the=20
Potomac<BR> River, according to an Environmental =
Protection Agency document, because the sludge=20
encourages<BR> fish to flee the area and its =
resident=20
fishermen.<BR><BR> The discovery of this =
document by the=20
National Wilderness Institute during research for its=20
ongoing<BR> lawsuit against EPA caused an uproar =
on=20
Capitol Hill during June 19 congressional hearings on=20
the<BR> issue.<BR><BR> =
EPA has=20
come under fire for allowing the Corps to dump 200,000 tons of toxic =
sludge into=20
the<BR> Potomac River every year. The sludge is =
dumped=20
near spawning grounds for the endangered<BR> =
shortnose=20
sturgeon, allegedly in violation of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and =
Clean=20
Water Act.<BR><BR> The Corps began dumping the =
sludge=20
into the C&O Canal National Park and Potomac River in 1989.=20
A<BR> permit issued by EPA allowed the toxic =
discharges=20
from 1989 to 1993. Although the permit was =
never<BR> =20
renewed, the Corps was allowed to continue its dumping operations =
through this=20
year. A new permit<BR> was issued in March=20
2002.<BR><BR><BR><STRONG> Evasive=20
maneuvers</STRONG><BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> According to =
an unnamed=20
author of the EPA document, =93It is not in my view a ridiculous=20
possibility<BR> that our discharge actually =
protects the=20
fish in that they are not inclined to bite (and get eaten=20
by<BR> humans), but they go ahead with their =
upstream=20
movement and egg laying.=94<BR><BR> The =
document, produced=20
in 1998 and clearly stamped =93EPA,=94 instructs officials on talking=20
points<BR> related to the toxic dumping. =
Specifically,=20
it encourages government officials to focus less on=20
the<BR> possibility that dumping is killing =
fish, and=20
more on assertions that the sturgeon can evade the=20
sludge<BR> on their way to spawning=20
grounds.<BR><BR> =93To suggest that toxic sludge =
is good=20
for fish because it prevents them from being caught by man=20
is<BR> like suggesting that we club baby seals =
to death=20
to prevent them from being eaten by sharks. =
It=92s<BR> =20
ludicrous,=94 said Rep. George Radanovich (R-California), chairman of =
the House=20
Subcommittee on<BR> National Parks, Recreation =
and=20
Public Lands.<BR><BR> =93This is one of the most =
frightening examples of bureaucratic ineptitude and backward logic I=20
have<BR> ever seen,=94 Radanovich=20
said.<BR><BR> Raising additional concerns, the =
document=20
appeared to be authored by the Army Corps of=20
Engineers,<BR> which is being regulated by EPA =
on the=20
matter. =93That is even more problematic,=94 stated Rob=20
Gordon,<BR> director of the National Wilderness=20
Institute. =93What is the Corps doing offering advice on [EPA]=20
letters<BR> going out regarding their=20
activities?=94<BR><BR> An EPA spokesperson =
countered it is=20
not unusual for the agency to give a draft to=20
=93various<BR> stakeholders involved in the=20
process.=94<BR><BR><BR><STRONG> An =
=93environmental=20
disaster=94</STRONG><BR></DIV></FONT>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><BR> On June =
18, Radanovich=20
sent a letter to the White House asking the Bush administration to clean =
up<BR> the =93environmental disaster=94 it=20
inherited.<BR><BR> =93Some of the same EPA =
officials who=20
decided not to forbid the dumping are still committed to=20
giving<BR> special treatment to this plant. =
Their=20
intransigence now threatens to link your administration to=20
the<BR> indefensible notion that Washington, DC, =
should=20
be exempt from the environmental laws that =
are<BR> =20
enforced throughout the country,=94 Radanovich=20
wrote.<BR><BR> =93The strength of the ESA is =
that it gives=20
power and control to government bureaucrats and serves=20
to<BR> enlarge the federal estate,=94 observed =
Kathleen=20
Benedetto, the National Wilderness Institute=92s=20
program<BR> director, in a recent interview with =
Environment & Climate News. =93The weakness is that it drives=20
a<BR> wedge between people and species, putting =
both at=20
risk.=94<BR><BR> National Wilderness Institute=20
spokespersons expressed confidence they will be successful in=20
their<BR> efforts to reverse the Army Corps =
dumping=20
policy, either through Congress or through the courts.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_0033_01C24E7B.EDBC9BE0--
More information about the Sludgewatch-l
mailing list