Moral Responsibility // Current

America's Endangered Species Under Attack

The Bush administration is proposing new rules that would weaken species protections and eliminate independent scientific review of development projects that could threaten species habit.

The changes ("tweaks") that the President Bush and the Bush Administration are proposing would weaken Section 7 of the landmark Endangered Species Act.

For more than three decades, this key provision of the ESA has safeguarded imperiled species from the impacts of potentially harmful federal projects.

Key to the success of this provision has been the requirement for interagency consultation between "action agencies" that build dams or highways, issue oil and gas leases or timber cutting contracts, etc., and the "conservation agencies" that have the primary responsibility for protecting endangered species (the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service).

The conservation agencies have always had the opportunity and responsibility to take a second look at the projects proposed by the action agencies. As a result of taking that independent look, the conservation agencies have often been able to suggest project modifications that avoid harmful impacts to rare species.

The proposed regulatory changes would eliminate the requirement for an independent review by the conservation agencies. The result will almost certainly mean that both harmful impacts on rare wildlife, and opportunities to avoid those impacts, will be overlooked.

Conservation is not the mission of federal action agencies like the Army Corps of Engineers, the Federal Highway Administration, and others. To make sure that their projects (and the projects of many other federal agencies as well) do not cause needless harm to rare species, the existing requirement for independent review by federal conservation agencies should not be abandoned.

Please follow the link for the petition to President Bush. If these regulatory changes are made, it will be as if the Endangered Species Act does not exist... not to mention the horrific impact on the environment.

PLEASE TAKE ACTION!
http://action.edf.org/campaign/esa_action

I will be posting more news release on this issue.The Bush administration is proposing new rules that would weaken species protections and eliminate independent scientific review... more

julesrs007
added this

2 responses

4 months ago

Bottled water industry faces growing opposition

Last week’s decision by a York County water board to delay a vote on whether to sell municipal water to Nestle Corp., the owner of Poland Spring, did not happen in a vacuum.

* Last month in McCloud, Calif., after encountering opposition to what would have been the largest water bottling plant in the country, Nestle announced plans to significantly reduce the plant’s size.
* Earlier this month in Enumclaw, Wash., the city council rejected a proposal to allow Nestle to build another such plant.
* And last Monday, the U.S. Conference of Mayors voted to phase out use of bottled water for municipal employees.

Across the country, opposition to bottled water is building, amid growing concerns about the industry’s environmental impact and rising fears about private control of public water supplies.

“There’s no question that there is a groundswell,” said Ruth Caplan, coordinator of Defending Water for Life, a Washington, D.C.-based campaign that opposes the bottled water industry.

There are several reasons for the backlash to bottled water. Some of it is driven by fears about global warming - given the amount of oil needed to bottle and transport the water.

Some stems from concerns about the chemical makeup of plastic water bottles.

Some of the opposition is a byproduct of the huge price disparity between bottled water and the kind of water that comes from the tap for free.

Here in Maine, some of the local opposition to Poland Spring’s operations has stemmed from the traffic generated by the trucks that transport the water.

Perhaps the biggest factor, though, is a fear that as bottled water becomes more popular, private corporations are gaining more control over a natural resource that is central to life.

“The fundamental issue is, who owns the water?” said Jim Olson, an attorney for Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation, which has been engaged in a legal battle with Nestle. “If this company gets to do it, all companies get to do it, and you’re not going to be able to say no in the future.”
~~~~~~~~~~
We need to stop the commoditization of this resource which is the lifeblood of the Earth. Water is a human right. It cannot be bought by Nestle at the expense of the poor in countries where water is already scarce. It is a good sign to see people finally standing up to these companies.
Last week’s decision by a York County water board to delay a vote on whether to sell municipal water to Nestle Corp., the... more