Bush policies threaten West’s remaining water
ACCORDING TO A May 2 New York Times article, “the development of the modern urbanized West — one of the biggest growth spurts in the nation’s history — may have been based on a colossal miscalculation.”
Scientists who look back in time by studying tree rings and ocean temperatures are able to determine general climatological trends, and the research on the previous 800 years indicates that the last century was unusually wet. This means that the “drought” sweeping the Southwest is not an unusual event but more likely the norm.
In a time when water is so-scarce, our leaders should be trying to protect our remaining resources. Instead, some in Washington are enacting policies that actually encourage pollution and destruction of our remaining waters.
The most glaring example of this is a policy directive on so called “isolated” waters set in place in January 2003 by the Bush administration. The policy takes a very narrow gap in the law, created by a 2001 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, and broadens it to a major rollback of federal water protections, asserting that no waters considered “isolated” are to receive any safeguards offered by the Clean Water Act. In the administration’s own estimate, 20 million acres of wetlands nationwide have now lost federal protections as well as numerous streams, lakes, ponds and other waters previously under the act.
This policy is especially troubling for Colorado. Since the state is so dry, many of its wetlands, lakes and ponds do not have obvious connections to other waters, and most streams dry up during part of the year. This leads to arguments that these waters are isolated. Additionally, the West is home to many valleys and basins where water only escapes through evaporation and groundwater. Such “closed” basins can be hundreds of miles long and contain large rivers and lakes. With no obvious connections to other waters, these basins are also being considered isolated. As such, these waters that have been protected by the Clean Water Act since its inception are now exempt under the Bush administration’s policy directive.
The administration’s policy might not be so dangerous if Colorado had its own laws in place to protect its “isolated” waters. But Colorado’s clean water laws, like those of most other Western states, have evolved during the past three decades to work alongside the federal Clean Water Act, not in place of it. Developers and other polluters are now free to decide which of these wetlands, streams, lakes and rivers they want to destroy or degrade.
Even if you don’t live near an isolated wetland or stream — although you probably do — you could personally be affected by the administration’s policies. Many so-called isolated wetlands do in fact connect to other waters, through the groundwater table and wildlife migration. Wetlands and streams — isolated or not — naturally filter out pollutants that can enter and degrade your community’s water supply. Wetlands also slow the flow of water, helping to recharge the groundwater table. Without isolated wetlands and streams, rain water flows uninhibited across the landscape to the sea — incidentally picking up whatever pollutants it encounters along the way — instead of naturally recharging your wells and reservoirs with clean water.
A review of recent decisions makes it clear the Denver Regulatory Office within the Omaha District of the Corps is declining to assert jurisdiction over many man-made ditches and canals, no matter where this water eventually flows or the quantity that is directed through them. This is significant for this region of the country as most natural waterways have already been conveyed into ditches or culverts for irrigation or flood control purposes.
With the Omaha District of the Corps only regulating natural water conveyances, a considerable percentage of waterways in Colorado have lost all Clean Water Act protections. Additionally, the Denver office is not regulating any reservoirs or lakes they deem to be “geographically isolated,” no matter how large or if they have obvious potential for interstate commerce.
The Bush administration cannot wait until an entire region of the country no longer has an adequate and healthy supply of water. The president must withdraw his policy on isolated wetlands and fully enforce the Clean Water Act. His administration needs to start considering the long-term consequences of its water polices for the Southwest and the entire nation. Anything less would indeed be a colossal miscalculation.
Charles Olmsted is professor emeritus of environmental studies at the University of Northern Colorado and a regional director of the National Wildlife Federation.