US reduces protection of waters, wetlands: report

[Rose Siding]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - In the past four years, the United States has drastically cut back on its protection of waterways and wetlands, whose erosion was cited as a factor in the destruction caused by Hurricane Katrina, according to a report issued on Wednesday.

The report by the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress, examined how the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency assert jurisdiction over many of the nation's waterways and wetlands.

Environmental groups criticized government practices discussed in the report.

"Losses of wetlands in many areas in the United States are unprecedented, yet the corps is allowing many of the remaining wetlands to be destroyed, in violation of its Clean Water Act obligations, without even trying to figure out why," said Christy Leavitt of environmental group U.S. PIRG.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/12/AR2005101200952.html

[tex-wyo-dem]

1. Can you say "counterintuitive"....

That's the problem with Rethugs...short sided thinking driven by greed...can't see beyond the immediate $$$ to be made, yet they blame the environmentalists and libruls when something bad happens.

Science is just a sham, don't ya know :sarcasm:

[enough]

2. I am convinced that mainstream Republicans do not approve of this.

I meet a lot of main-stream Republicans in working on local land-preservation issues. A lot of them are very savvy and aware environmentally. This will be as appalling to them as it is to us.

We really are dealing with a bunch of extremists in this Regime.

[mom cat]

3. Then where are their voices? Why are they still supporting this

insanity?

[barb162]

5. They aren't supporting it, I suspect. They just feel

terrorism was a bigger issue and voted for their "war prez" as they felt he was tougher on it than Kerry. People don't like to shift parties during wars.

[mom cat]

7. Perhaps that is why Cheney predicts decades of war...and perhaps

that is why people better reconsidet their party affilliation during the war. We might not be here when this damn war on humanity ends.

[barb162]

8. you're right

I think I read somewhere that environemntal is something that about 90% of people agree on; people want stronger environmental protection. Problem is the terror/war/gay marriage/swifties/ etc., issues took precedence in the last election.

[enough]

10. Actually, some of them are part of organized opposition to

Republican anti-environmental policies, in a group called REP (Republicans for Environmental Protection). And some of them voted for Kerry (not all).

[struggle4progress]

14. Silence is consent. eom

[MountainLaurel]

15. Amen.

:applause:

[sakabatou]

4. Because the industry comes before the Earth

:puke:

[Earth_First]

6. Just wait until they gear up the Supreme Court...

They are gearing up to hear three cases in Michigan involving development of wetland areas...

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=supreme+court+wetlands

[enough]

12. Yes, with the new corporobot Roberts, and likely ascension of ditto Miers,

the outlook is grim.

[drduffy]

9. was it James Watt???

Which Watt was it as sec of interior or such under Reagan who was ok with cutting down all the forests because the biblical end was coming soon anyway. Does that sound familiar??

[MisterP]

11. can we get some plastic alligators down here?

[indepat]

13. Destruction for corporate profit is seemingly the only game in town (DC)