PHS 100 A
Warner Pacific College
June 16, 2011
2
Environmental regulations affect us every day of our lives. From the time we get up in the morning to the time that we turn off the lights at night. Every aspect of our daily lives is regulated and it always costs us money. Since 2009 when Obama took office the United States Environmental Protection Agency has finalized 928 new rules and proposed 703 others. All of this regulation comes with a price as well that costs the regulated communities millions and in some cases billions of dollars. At this time the Environmental Protection Agency is not required to utilize any form of economic impact analysis when implementing rules. The costs that are associated with the implementation of new regulation cannot be easily absorbed in some industry sectors and in most cases is passed on to the consumers. In some cases over regulation or costly regulation can make doing business in the United States so cost prohibitive that companies chose to send our jobs overseas.
Environmental regulation is a necessary part of our culture and has most certainly assisted us in correcting significant public health issues as well as correcting and preserving the biodiversity in our communities. Clean air and water regulation that was implemented in the 1970’s has brought life back to polluted waterways and brought safer water into our communities. However, as with most government agencies is it possible that the EPA has become an out of control governmental giant that is simply implementing new regulation to create new sources of revenue to sustain the EPA’s administrative growth? The EPA’s budget increased 34% from 2009 to 2010 to an astounding $10.3 billion dollars. Approximately $13 million dollars of this is set aside for led clean up in the Chesapeake Bay. Efforts to clean up this site have been on- going for over 25 years and have cost taxpayers billions of dollars without any successful outcomes. Shouldn’t we be spending these valuable dollars elsewhere?
PAPER: ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS 3
The economic impacts are an integral piece of the environmental regulatory process. Regulation is necessary but only when the benefits of regulation outweigh the harm. Regulation has to be realistic in the sense that it is not created for political purposes or “feel good” reasons, meaning symbolism over substance. Regulation needs to serve a true public purpose one that accounts for public health, long term health of our environment our ecosystems and biodiversity as well as managing economic impacts to our economy. If we have a productive economy that isn’t being regulated out of business and we allow business to flourish in an environmentally responsible manner there will be more resources available to solve our environmental problems. However, if you regulate our economy into non-existence where then will the money come from to solve our economic problems? Simply regulation is a necessary part of doing business in our country and abroad, however over-regulation that stifles the economy, causes loss of jobs and loss of capital injections into our economy that does not clearly solve our major long term environmental problems is nothing more than government growing more government.
References
Oregon State Land Conservation and Development Department: www.lcd.state.or.us
Republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/News/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=8228
Washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/01/AR2010020101669.html
Withgott, J., & Bennan, S. (2010) Environment: The Science Behind the Stories (4th ed.) New
York. Pearson Benjamin Cummings. ISBN: 13: 978-0-321-71534--0
Friday, June 17, 2011
Environmental Regulations and Economic Development by Leanne Clark
Environmental Regulations and
Economic Development
Leanne Clark
Warner Pacific College
June 16, 2011
As we look at environmental regulations and how they impact our country’s economic development, it would be easy to assume that strict regulations would hinder such economic growth. Tough laws and restrictions cost money to adhere to, right? While it is true that setting up to work within environmental regulations can be a sizeable investment, recent evidence also proves being good to our earth and honoring biodiversity can actually support and improve economic development.
Steven Meyer, a political scientist at MIT, completed a study in 1992 which supports the idea that environmentally strong states show a better economic climate.
When you group the states in sort of three categories, environmentally strong, moderate and weak -- when you compare the strong with the weak, what you find is that on average the environmentally strong states outgrow, on all the indicators, the environmentally weak states by a factor of one and a half to two times. (Meyer, 1992)
The United Nations named 2010 as the International Year of Biodiversity stressing the importance of biodiversity, especially in third world countries. Three quarters of the world’s population depend on natural resources for daily living and their daily survival. With our natural resources on a continual path of destruction, we push those who are most vulnerable further into harms way. By establishing and enforcing environmental regulations which protect resources, such as clean water we are allowing those in under developed countries to work toward a future. (Preserving world's biodiversity vital for economic development, 2010)
In the United States, it is the Environmental Protection Agency charged with establishing regulations to protect our environment while working in coordination with industry. The current director of the EPA, Lisa Jackson, supports the idea that such regulation and protection of our natural resources encourages and improves economic growth, not impedes it.
In response to the argument that environmental spending should be curbed until the economy is improved, Jackson responded,
Without clean energy, the global economy will be running on empty within our lifetimes. It’s time to stop denying that obvious truth, stop playing on the politics of delay and denial, and start thinking more broadly about what is going to help us all move forward together. (Granger, 2010)
From every corner of the world, environmentalist and government officials alike are shouldering the biodiversity banner. Each seems to understand more deeply that a planet rich in diverse ecosystems will most effectively support a growing world population and faltering world economy.
Another factor directly related maintaining, or not, a healthy base of biodiversity is government corruption. For example, a study by scientists from the Universities of Kent and Cambridge in England has shown that corruption levels in developing countries play an important role in affecting the success of conservation projects. Their results show that countries with threatened species and habitats tend to be the most corrupt and that corrupt countries in Africa are the least successful at protecting their elephant and black rhinoceros populations. (Corruption and biodiversity conservation, 2009)
Clearly we can see that a planet rich with biodiversity would also be a more economically stable planet. One answer to our environmental and economic problems will not do, we must bring together all those factors to provide support for these two critical forces. By establishing and enforcing environmental regulations that protect our many plant and animal species, we are in fact, protecting ourselves.
Economic Development
Leanne Clark
Warner Pacific College
June 16, 2011
As we look at environmental regulations and how they impact our country’s economic development, it would be easy to assume that strict regulations would hinder such economic growth. Tough laws and restrictions cost money to adhere to, right? While it is true that setting up to work within environmental regulations can be a sizeable investment, recent evidence also proves being good to our earth and honoring biodiversity can actually support and improve economic development.
Steven Meyer, a political scientist at MIT, completed a study in 1992 which supports the idea that environmentally strong states show a better economic climate.
When you group the states in sort of three categories, environmentally strong, moderate and weak -- when you compare the strong with the weak, what you find is that on average the environmentally strong states outgrow, on all the indicators, the environmentally weak states by a factor of one and a half to two times. (Meyer, 1992)
The United Nations named 2010 as the International Year of Biodiversity stressing the importance of biodiversity, especially in third world countries. Three quarters of the world’s population depend on natural resources for daily living and their daily survival. With our natural resources on a continual path of destruction, we push those who are most vulnerable further into harms way. By establishing and enforcing environmental regulations which protect resources, such as clean water we are allowing those in under developed countries to work toward a future. (Preserving world's biodiversity vital for economic development, 2010)
In the United States, it is the Environmental Protection Agency charged with establishing regulations to protect our environment while working in coordination with industry. The current director of the EPA, Lisa Jackson, supports the idea that such regulation and protection of our natural resources encourages and improves economic growth, not impedes it.
In response to the argument that environmental spending should be curbed until the economy is improved, Jackson responded,
Without clean energy, the global economy will be running on empty within our lifetimes. It’s time to stop denying that obvious truth, stop playing on the politics of delay and denial, and start thinking more broadly about what is going to help us all move forward together. (Granger, 2010)
From every corner of the world, environmentalist and government officials alike are shouldering the biodiversity banner. Each seems to understand more deeply that a planet rich in diverse ecosystems will most effectively support a growing world population and faltering world economy.
Another factor directly related maintaining, or not, a healthy base of biodiversity is government corruption. For example, a study by scientists from the Universities of Kent and Cambridge in England has shown that corruption levels in developing countries play an important role in affecting the success of conservation projects. Their results show that countries with threatened species and habitats tend to be the most corrupt and that corrupt countries in Africa are the least successful at protecting their elephant and black rhinoceros populations. (Corruption and biodiversity conservation, 2009)
Clearly we can see that a planet rich with biodiversity would also be a more economically stable planet. One answer to our environmental and economic problems will not do, we must bring together all those factors to provide support for these two critical forces. By establishing and enforcing environmental regulations that protect our many plant and animal species, we are in fact, protecting ourselves.
Gray Wolf Conservation by Angie Avey
Gray Wolf Conservation in Washington State
Angela Avey
PHS 100A
Warner Pacific College
June 16, 2011
Gray Wolf Conservation in Washington State
The Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife has an extensive list of programs which help native wildlife species stay abundant, thrive and maintain long-term productivity. Many programs are focused on the careful observation of these animals in order to monitor their activities and life cycles and to detect any threats which may harm the species survival. While this is definitely in the best interest of the animals, it is controversial in many cases as the laws and policies enacted often have serious consequences to other animals, land spaces and sometimes even human beings.
Under state law, the gray wolf is considered an endangered species in Washington and is also federally recognized as endangered in two thirds of the western portion of the state. The wolves once flourished in the state until mass killings began to decimate their numbers. This was caused by human expansion into areas in which the gray wolf inhabited. Between 1850 and 1900, many farms and livestock areas were being pushed farther and farther into the gray wolves territories and naturally, it took advantage of the livestock as a form of food. Because of human intervention and the killing of the wolves, by the early 1930s they were all but considered an extinct breeding species in the state.
In recent times, as the wolves began to reintroduce themselves back into the state in small numbers (most likely migrating from states to the east and Canada from the north), the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife began to propose policies towards a conservation and management plan intended to bring the level of gray wolves to a sustainable and safe number. Today, there are three documented wolf packs in the state, but only one pack has what is considered a successful breeding pair (male, female and at least two pups). In order for the state to delist the wolves as endangered, the number of successful breeding pairs must reach at least fifteen. This sets a high bar for the wolves in Washington, as the federal number of successful breeding pairs must only reach ten before they will be delisted as a federally endangered species (in the state). This is significant because it shows that the State is intent on assisting the wolves in their efforts at reestablishing their healthy and prosperous existence.
Not everyone is happy for the wolves though. There has been great opposition amongst farmers and ranch hands who are familiar with what a pack of wolves can do to their livestock numbers. Wolves find livestock to be an easy form of prey and will do what they need in order to survive. Hunting wolves is not allowed in Washington, yet there are farmers in the state that have gone on record to say that they will happily shoot any wolf intent on feeding on his livestock.
Regardless of which side one stands regarding the conservation and management plan proposed by Washington, I believe the recognition and acknowledgement given by the state to the gray wolf is a positive step in the way that laws can be used to protect the animals and preserve their right to reestablish their population.
References
Sandsberry, S. (2011, June 13). Some panelists say population cap is needed for wolves in state. East Oregonian Retrieved from http://www.eastoregonian.com/news/regional/some-panelists-say-population-cap-needed-for-wolves-in-state/article_8954ddbc-95d8-11e0-a6f2-001cc4c03286.html
http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/gray_wolf/
Angela Avey
PHS 100A
Warner Pacific College
June 16, 2011
Gray Wolf Conservation in Washington State
The Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife has an extensive list of programs which help native wildlife species stay abundant, thrive and maintain long-term productivity. Many programs are focused on the careful observation of these animals in order to monitor their activities and life cycles and to detect any threats which may harm the species survival. While this is definitely in the best interest of the animals, it is controversial in many cases as the laws and policies enacted often have serious consequences to other animals, land spaces and sometimes even human beings.
Under state law, the gray wolf is considered an endangered species in Washington and is also federally recognized as endangered in two thirds of the western portion of the state. The wolves once flourished in the state until mass killings began to decimate their numbers. This was caused by human expansion into areas in which the gray wolf inhabited. Between 1850 and 1900, many farms and livestock areas were being pushed farther and farther into the gray wolves territories and naturally, it took advantage of the livestock as a form of food. Because of human intervention and the killing of the wolves, by the early 1930s they were all but considered an extinct breeding species in the state.
In recent times, as the wolves began to reintroduce themselves back into the state in small numbers (most likely migrating from states to the east and Canada from the north), the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife began to propose policies towards a conservation and management plan intended to bring the level of gray wolves to a sustainable and safe number. Today, there are three documented wolf packs in the state, but only one pack has what is considered a successful breeding pair (male, female and at least two pups). In order for the state to delist the wolves as endangered, the number of successful breeding pairs must reach at least fifteen. This sets a high bar for the wolves in Washington, as the federal number of successful breeding pairs must only reach ten before they will be delisted as a federally endangered species (in the state). This is significant because it shows that the State is intent on assisting the wolves in their efforts at reestablishing their healthy and prosperous existence.
Not everyone is happy for the wolves though. There has been great opposition amongst farmers and ranch hands who are familiar with what a pack of wolves can do to their livestock numbers. Wolves find livestock to be an easy form of prey and will do what they need in order to survive. Hunting wolves is not allowed in Washington, yet there are farmers in the state that have gone on record to say that they will happily shoot any wolf intent on feeding on his livestock.
Regardless of which side one stands regarding the conservation and management plan proposed by Washington, I believe the recognition and acknowledgement given by the state to the gray wolf is a positive step in the way that laws can be used to protect the animals and preserve their right to reestablish their population.
References
Sandsberry, S. (2011, June 13). Some panelists say population cap is needed for wolves in state. East Oregonian Retrieved from http://www.eastoregonian.com/news/regional/some-panelists-say-population-cap-needed-for-wolves-in-state/article_8954ddbc-95d8-11e0-a6f2-001cc4c03286.html
http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/gray_wolf/
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
The Tragedy of the Commons by Pat Hozbach
While the Battle Rages
Pat Holzbach
Environmental Studies, PHS 100A
Warner Pacific College
June 14, 2011
While the Battle Rages
In Garrett Hardin’s “The Tragedy of the Commons” (1968), he put into perspective an ever-growing demand on a finite quantity of natural resources. His theory was that each individual, left to their own doing, would use all the resources he wanted for his own gain, regardless of the impact to the total environment. I believe that there is much merit to his theory.
While there are some who will voluntarily sacrifice for the good of the whole, most will do what serves their own best interest. Paul, in the book of Romans 7:21 (Contemporary English Version), confirms this human trait: “The Law has shown me that something in me keeps me from doing what I know is right.” Unfortunately, because of our human nature and the limited resources, it has become necessary for laws to be passed to preserve the environmental essentials and assets we have been given.
The future of the gray wolf, a keystone in its ecosystem, has been caught in a battle between federal and state regulatory bodies for nearly 100 years. (See attached timeline.) The latest effort by Congress, which was a rider attached to the 2011 Budget bill to remove the gray wolf from the endangered list, is even now being challenged in court. (Greenwald, 2011)
Some of the controversy stems from the definition of a recovered population. According to the Fish and Wildlife Services, there are at least 1,645 gray wolves living in the Northern Rockies. The goal set back in 1974 was to have 300 wolves in the area; however, many scientists believe that a population of 300 is too small to prevent genetic loss, that a population of 2,000 to 2,500 is required. {Platt, 2009) In addition, since the gray wolf was deliberately killed off in 1915, and strong animosities still exist, recovery of the species will take more time. (Harrison, 2009)
When wolves are part of the equation, they help to bring balance and diversity to their ecosystem. When the wolves were removed from the Yellowstone National Park in the early part of the 20th century, the elk population expanded; there seems to be a correlation between the growth in population of elk, and the demise of aspen, willow, and cottonwood trees, which were abundant prior to the 1930s when the last wolves were killed. Elk like to feed on small young trees, so the new shoots of aspen didn’t have a chance with the increased numbers of elk. Without young trees, beavers have no food, they don’t build dams, the rivers don’t pool, and the trout population is smaller. The trees also help to stabilize river banks and reduce erosion. (Robbins, 2004)
Wolves bring significant value to their environments; however, ranchers want to be able to protect their livestock. More research can offer ways to help environmentalists and ranchers both achieve their goals. The Defenders of Wildlife organization is working with Idaho ranchers and biologists in just such an effort to help keep wolves alive and out of harm’s way. They have discovered that guard dogs and range riders help to deter wolves, and save their lives. Also, flaggery seems to keep them at bay. “Flaggery” is a rope fence set up around the livestock, with red flag strips 3” wide, 18” long, 18” apart hanging from it. The motion of the strips flapping in the breeze, surprisingly, scares off the wolves. (Defenders of Wildlife, 2009)
By researching and learning the behaviors of the wolves, we can develop techniques that will protect both the livestock and the wolf, and allow the wolf to resume his role as the keystone species. Environmental regulations help keep the wolves from becoming extinct while we are learning.
Attachment
The following timeline is from the Idaho Fish and Game website:
• In 1915, Congress allocated $125,000 to destroying wolves, coyotes and other predators throughout the west. It is believed that the last wolf in Idaho was killed in the 1930s.
• In 1967 (and again in 1974 under a different act), gray wolves were listed as an endangered species.
• In 1980, Congress approved a plan to reintroduce wolves in central Idaho and Yellowstone National Park.
• November 1990, Congress established a national Wolf Management Committee to develop a gray wolf reintroduction and management plan for Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho wilderness area.
• In 1991, the Wolf Management Committee submitted its plan to Congress. In November 1991, Congress directed the US Fish and Wildlife Service to prepare an environmental impact statement on the plan.
• In 1992, the Idaho state legislature voted to enter into a cooperative agreement with the US Fish and Wildlife Service in preparing the impact statement. A seven-member Wolf Oversight Committee was established to guide and advise the process.
• In July 1993, the draft environmental impact statement was released; 160,284 comments from public citizens, agencies and interest groups were received.
• In 1994, the final impact statement was completed, proposing to reintroduce wolves into central Idaho and Yellowstone National Park as a nonessential experimental population. The Secretary of Interior signed the plan, and directed that it be implemented as soon as possible.
• In 1995, wolves began to be released in central Idaho, twenty-eight years after being listed as an endangered species, and 15 years after Congress approved their reintroduction. By December 1998, it was estimated that 115 wolves existed in Idaho.
• In March 2001, the Idaho legislature sent a written request to Congress and the President demanding that wolves be taken off of the endangered list, that recovery efforts be stopped immediately, that wolves be removed from Idaho by whatever means possible, and that the Federal government make financial restitution for damages created by wolves.
• In September 2001, 30 pairs of wolves were documented in the three-state area of Idaho, Montana and Wyoming, setting the stage for de-listing the wolves.
• In 2002-2003, Idaho and Montana prepared a plan for preservation of wolves once they were de-listed. Wyoming prepared a plan, but it was not accepted until 2004.
• In January 2006, an agreement was reached between Idaho and the US Department of the Interior to allow day-to-day wolf management responsibilities to be held by Idaho.
• In February 2008, gray wolves were removed from the list of endangered species by the US Fish and Wildlife Service. In March 2008, Idaho legislators voted to allow ranchers and pet owners to kill a wolf that was attacking their animals, and began planning for future wolf hunting seasons.
• In July 2008, a Federal judge issued a preliminary injunction in favor of conservation groups challenging the de-listing based on the still relatively small population of gray wolves in Idaho. Plans for hunting season were put on hold. In October 2008, the lawsuit was dismissed. Two weeks later, the US Fish and Wildlife Service reopened the public comment period for the de-listing.
• In April 2009, the US Fish and Wildlife Service de-listed gray wolves in the Northern Rockies. Idaho established wolf hunting season dates for September 2009 through March 31, 2010. 188 wolves were killed.
• In August 2010, the US District Court ruled that the de-listing does not comply with the Endangered Species Act, and gray wolves in Idaho and the Northern Rocky Mountains were returned to the endangered species status. In October 2010, the governor of Idaho returned wolf management responsibilities to the federal government.
• In April 2011, when Congress passed the budget, senators from Montana and Idaho attached a rider that required the US Fish and Wildlife Service to de-list the wolves within 60 days, and return the management of wolves to the states. In May 2011, the wolves were removed from the endangered species, and hunting tags were sold.
References
Defenders of Wildlife (2009). Keeping wolves out of harm’s way (video). Retrieved on June 10, 2011, from http://vimeo.com/5022010
Greenwald, N. (May 5, 2011). Lawsuit challenges constitutionality of anti-wolf rider. Center for Biological Diversity. Retrieved on June 10, 2011, from http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2011/wolves-05-05-2011.html
Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science, December 13, 1968. Retrieved on June 10, 2011, from http://www.garretthardinsociety.org/articles/art_tragedy_of_the_commons.html
Harrison, E. (2009). The gray wolf: Out of the woods? Scientific American, January 15, 2009. Retrieved on June 10, 2011, from http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=gray-wolf-off-endangered-list
Platt, J. (2009). Wolves dropped from U.S. endangered species list—again. Scientific American, May 8, 2009. Retrieved on June 10, 2011, from http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=wolves-dropped-from-endangered-spec-2009-05-08
Robbins, J. (2004). Lessons from the wolf. Scientific American, May 24, 2004. Retrieved on June 10, 2011, from http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=lessons-from-the-wolf
Pat Holzbach
Environmental Studies, PHS 100A
Warner Pacific College
June 14, 2011
While the Battle Rages
In Garrett Hardin’s “The Tragedy of the Commons” (1968), he put into perspective an ever-growing demand on a finite quantity of natural resources. His theory was that each individual, left to their own doing, would use all the resources he wanted for his own gain, regardless of the impact to the total environment. I believe that there is much merit to his theory.
While there are some who will voluntarily sacrifice for the good of the whole, most will do what serves their own best interest. Paul, in the book of Romans 7:21 (Contemporary English Version), confirms this human trait: “The Law has shown me that something in me keeps me from doing what I know is right.” Unfortunately, because of our human nature and the limited resources, it has become necessary for laws to be passed to preserve the environmental essentials and assets we have been given.
The future of the gray wolf, a keystone in its ecosystem, has been caught in a battle between federal and state regulatory bodies for nearly 100 years. (See attached timeline.) The latest effort by Congress, which was a rider attached to the 2011 Budget bill to remove the gray wolf from the endangered list, is even now being challenged in court. (Greenwald, 2011)
Some of the controversy stems from the definition of a recovered population. According to the Fish and Wildlife Services, there are at least 1,645 gray wolves living in the Northern Rockies. The goal set back in 1974 was to have 300 wolves in the area; however, many scientists believe that a population of 300 is too small to prevent genetic loss, that a population of 2,000 to 2,500 is required. {Platt, 2009) In addition, since the gray wolf was deliberately killed off in 1915, and strong animosities still exist, recovery of the species will take more time. (Harrison, 2009)
When wolves are part of the equation, they help to bring balance and diversity to their ecosystem. When the wolves were removed from the Yellowstone National Park in the early part of the 20th century, the elk population expanded; there seems to be a correlation between the growth in population of elk, and the demise of aspen, willow, and cottonwood trees, which were abundant prior to the 1930s when the last wolves were killed. Elk like to feed on small young trees, so the new shoots of aspen didn’t have a chance with the increased numbers of elk. Without young trees, beavers have no food, they don’t build dams, the rivers don’t pool, and the trout population is smaller. The trees also help to stabilize river banks and reduce erosion. (Robbins, 2004)
Wolves bring significant value to their environments; however, ranchers want to be able to protect their livestock. More research can offer ways to help environmentalists and ranchers both achieve their goals. The Defenders of Wildlife organization is working with Idaho ranchers and biologists in just such an effort to help keep wolves alive and out of harm’s way. They have discovered that guard dogs and range riders help to deter wolves, and save their lives. Also, flaggery seems to keep them at bay. “Flaggery” is a rope fence set up around the livestock, with red flag strips 3” wide, 18” long, 18” apart hanging from it. The motion of the strips flapping in the breeze, surprisingly, scares off the wolves. (Defenders of Wildlife, 2009)
By researching and learning the behaviors of the wolves, we can develop techniques that will protect both the livestock and the wolf, and allow the wolf to resume his role as the keystone species. Environmental regulations help keep the wolves from becoming extinct while we are learning.
Attachment
The following timeline is from the Idaho Fish and Game website:
• In 1915, Congress allocated $125,000 to destroying wolves, coyotes and other predators throughout the west. It is believed that the last wolf in Idaho was killed in the 1930s.
• In 1967 (and again in 1974 under a different act), gray wolves were listed as an endangered species.
• In 1980, Congress approved a plan to reintroduce wolves in central Idaho and Yellowstone National Park.
• November 1990, Congress established a national Wolf Management Committee to develop a gray wolf reintroduction and management plan for Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho wilderness area.
• In 1991, the Wolf Management Committee submitted its plan to Congress. In November 1991, Congress directed the US Fish and Wildlife Service to prepare an environmental impact statement on the plan.
• In 1992, the Idaho state legislature voted to enter into a cooperative agreement with the US Fish and Wildlife Service in preparing the impact statement. A seven-member Wolf Oversight Committee was established to guide and advise the process.
• In July 1993, the draft environmental impact statement was released; 160,284 comments from public citizens, agencies and interest groups were received.
• In 1994, the final impact statement was completed, proposing to reintroduce wolves into central Idaho and Yellowstone National Park as a nonessential experimental population. The Secretary of Interior signed the plan, and directed that it be implemented as soon as possible.
• In 1995, wolves began to be released in central Idaho, twenty-eight years after being listed as an endangered species, and 15 years after Congress approved their reintroduction. By December 1998, it was estimated that 115 wolves existed in Idaho.
• In March 2001, the Idaho legislature sent a written request to Congress and the President demanding that wolves be taken off of the endangered list, that recovery efforts be stopped immediately, that wolves be removed from Idaho by whatever means possible, and that the Federal government make financial restitution for damages created by wolves.
• In September 2001, 30 pairs of wolves were documented in the three-state area of Idaho, Montana and Wyoming, setting the stage for de-listing the wolves.
• In 2002-2003, Idaho and Montana prepared a plan for preservation of wolves once they were de-listed. Wyoming prepared a plan, but it was not accepted until 2004.
• In January 2006, an agreement was reached between Idaho and the US Department of the Interior to allow day-to-day wolf management responsibilities to be held by Idaho.
• In February 2008, gray wolves were removed from the list of endangered species by the US Fish and Wildlife Service. In March 2008, Idaho legislators voted to allow ranchers and pet owners to kill a wolf that was attacking their animals, and began planning for future wolf hunting seasons.
• In July 2008, a Federal judge issued a preliminary injunction in favor of conservation groups challenging the de-listing based on the still relatively small population of gray wolves in Idaho. Plans for hunting season were put on hold. In October 2008, the lawsuit was dismissed. Two weeks later, the US Fish and Wildlife Service reopened the public comment period for the de-listing.
• In April 2009, the US Fish and Wildlife Service de-listed gray wolves in the Northern Rockies. Idaho established wolf hunting season dates for September 2009 through March 31, 2010. 188 wolves were killed.
• In August 2010, the US District Court ruled that the de-listing does not comply with the Endangered Species Act, and gray wolves in Idaho and the Northern Rocky Mountains were returned to the endangered species status. In October 2010, the governor of Idaho returned wolf management responsibilities to the federal government.
• In April 2011, when Congress passed the budget, senators from Montana and Idaho attached a rider that required the US Fish and Wildlife Service to de-list the wolves within 60 days, and return the management of wolves to the states. In May 2011, the wolves were removed from the endangered species, and hunting tags were sold.
References
Defenders of Wildlife (2009). Keeping wolves out of harm’s way (video). Retrieved on June 10, 2011, from http://vimeo.com/5022010
Greenwald, N. (May 5, 2011). Lawsuit challenges constitutionality of anti-wolf rider. Center for Biological Diversity. Retrieved on June 10, 2011, from http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2011/wolves-05-05-2011.html
Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science, December 13, 1968. Retrieved on June 10, 2011, from http://www.garretthardinsociety.org/articles/art_tragedy_of_the_commons.html
Harrison, E. (2009). The gray wolf: Out of the woods? Scientific American, January 15, 2009. Retrieved on June 10, 2011, from http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=gray-wolf-off-endangered-list
Platt, J. (2009). Wolves dropped from U.S. endangered species list—again. Scientific American, May 8, 2009. Retrieved on June 10, 2011, from http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=wolves-dropped-from-endangered-spec-2009-05-08
Robbins, J. (2004). Lessons from the wolf. Scientific American, May 24, 2004. Retrieved on June 10, 2011, from http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=lessons-from-the-wolf
Farming and Environmental Regulations by Regi Ellis
Farming and Environmental Regulations
Regi Ellis
Environmental Studies PHS 100A
Warner Pacific College
June 14, 20011
Gone are the days when a family of farmers will pass on their legacy to their children and their children’s children and so on. Environmental regulations have strained the workings of Agribusiness and the different productions of these farms. Agribusiness covers the wide spectrum of farm production from animals to produce and every sector has regulations of some magnitude put into place. Regulations for safety, not only for the public as far as ingesting such products; but also for work safety on the farms themselves. The EPA, Environmental Protection Agency, the NRDC, Natural Resources Defense Council, and OSHA, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, not to mention the U.S. Department of Agriculture all work together to ensure safety of the workers on the farms, safety for the people buying the products and safety for the environment as the farmer works the lands growing his crops and breeding and butchering his cattle for sale.
On the outside looking in this sounds like a well established system with no kinks. The public is safe, the environment is safe. However, when a magnifying glass is taken in hand we see things that the normal eye does not see. The fact that the Environmental Protection Agency has imposed so many regulations on the farmers in California has them bringing their testimonies to Congress in hopes of some relief. Some of the testimony given by Tom Nassif, the president of the Western Growers Association, said “the resulting regulatory requirements are often inflexible and impractical.” Nassif also said that the regulatory conditions are “creating an environment that is stifling job creation, and economic opportunity.” Because of this, a majority of the farmers need to seek outside income as well as farming income, which puts an added strain on their families. Some are moving their production off-shore, and still others are getting out altogether. Smaller firms, according to the report, are bearing regulatory costs of 10,585 per employee, whereas bigger firms with 500 or more employees have costs of 7,755 per employee.
The report to Congress also states that reports or data found by the Environmental Protection Agency sometimes lack public data review, and are done without scientific confirmation and experience, and also without stakeholder involvement. This leads this writer to think that they want to get something by quickly as to not open too many Pandora boxes. Good or bad information is better than no information at all.
The president of the Growers-Shippers Association of Central California said “the EPA often seeks to protect the environment without considering the economic ramifications.” When stern and high priced regulations go into effect, businesses and Agribusiness men need to absorb those costs by passing it on to the consumer. Also by enforcing more rules and regulations, it is this writer’s opinion, that new machinery and expensive procedures go into effect only to drag the farmer under a cloud of expenditures that can never be paid back, or take away their ambition altogether.
The environmental agencies that regulate farm and its production should take a good hard look at what is at stake. On the other hand, does society allow the farmer to continue to pollute our streams, rivers and water tables just to ensure economic growth and prosperiety? Or do we investigate further into the real farming regulation makers. In a 2008 production of Food Inc. film maker Robert Kenner sheds a light on corporate farming in the United States. The corporate farmer has another set of rules and regulations they have to abide by or they don’t have jobs. Needless to say where is the Environmental Protection Agency now? How come the National Resources Defense Council or the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, or even the U.S. Department of Agriculture have not stepped in and made their demands clear? Why is big corporation getting away with insisting that these farmers use the pesticides that poison our water, and breed cattle by the thousands with no real humane way to butcher them and make sure all is done in a sanitized area and methods in place and implemented so that food is not contaminated? Big corporate farming is where the problem lies. The little farmer with his run offs and cleans up that need to happen, is not being forced to grow produce bigger and faster and hardier by use of pesticides and herbicides, they are not being forced to breed and raise cattle faster and bigger than the next farming corporation for a good price at market, disregarding all ethics in the mean time.
Environmental Agencies do affect our farmers and the economic societal life of our population, but are they making the changes that should be made? Our Nations farms are no longer the mom and pop farmers of the past, they are industry, and industry should be monitored. Industry should be monitored by the agencies that can make sure the standards of food and water are safe for the population, and try to do so with improving our Nations economic backbone instead of breaking it.
References
Natural Resources Defense Council. Facts about Pollution. Revised January 13, 2011
Retrieved June 12, 2011 from
http://www.nrdc.org/water/pollution/ffarms.asphttp://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/90045549?
Occupational Safety & Health Administration. Agriculture Operations. United States Department of
Labor. Last Reviewed January 22, 2009. Retrieved June 12, 2011 from
http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/agricultureoperations/index.html
Ramstack, T. California Farmers Complain to Congress About Environmental Regulations.
April 19, 2011. All Headline News. Retrieved June 14, 2011 from http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/90045549?California%20farmers%20complain%20to%20Congress%20about%20environmental%20regulations
Regi Ellis
Environmental Studies PHS 100A
Warner Pacific College
June 14, 20011
Gone are the days when a family of farmers will pass on their legacy to their children and their children’s children and so on. Environmental regulations have strained the workings of Agribusiness and the different productions of these farms. Agribusiness covers the wide spectrum of farm production from animals to produce and every sector has regulations of some magnitude put into place. Regulations for safety, not only for the public as far as ingesting such products; but also for work safety on the farms themselves. The EPA, Environmental Protection Agency, the NRDC, Natural Resources Defense Council, and OSHA, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, not to mention the U.S. Department of Agriculture all work together to ensure safety of the workers on the farms, safety for the people buying the products and safety for the environment as the farmer works the lands growing his crops and breeding and butchering his cattle for sale.
On the outside looking in this sounds like a well established system with no kinks. The public is safe, the environment is safe. However, when a magnifying glass is taken in hand we see things that the normal eye does not see. The fact that the Environmental Protection Agency has imposed so many regulations on the farmers in California has them bringing their testimonies to Congress in hopes of some relief. Some of the testimony given by Tom Nassif, the president of the Western Growers Association, said “the resulting regulatory requirements are often inflexible and impractical.” Nassif also said that the regulatory conditions are “creating an environment that is stifling job creation, and economic opportunity.” Because of this, a majority of the farmers need to seek outside income as well as farming income, which puts an added strain on their families. Some are moving their production off-shore, and still others are getting out altogether. Smaller firms, according to the report, are bearing regulatory costs of 10,585 per employee, whereas bigger firms with 500 or more employees have costs of 7,755 per employee.
The report to Congress also states that reports or data found by the Environmental Protection Agency sometimes lack public data review, and are done without scientific confirmation and experience, and also without stakeholder involvement. This leads this writer to think that they want to get something by quickly as to not open too many Pandora boxes. Good or bad information is better than no information at all.
The president of the Growers-Shippers Association of Central California said “the EPA often seeks to protect the environment without considering the economic ramifications.” When stern and high priced regulations go into effect, businesses and Agribusiness men need to absorb those costs by passing it on to the consumer. Also by enforcing more rules and regulations, it is this writer’s opinion, that new machinery and expensive procedures go into effect only to drag the farmer under a cloud of expenditures that can never be paid back, or take away their ambition altogether.
The environmental agencies that regulate farm and its production should take a good hard look at what is at stake. On the other hand, does society allow the farmer to continue to pollute our streams, rivers and water tables just to ensure economic growth and prosperiety? Or do we investigate further into the real farming regulation makers. In a 2008 production of Food Inc. film maker Robert Kenner sheds a light on corporate farming in the United States. The corporate farmer has another set of rules and regulations they have to abide by or they don’t have jobs. Needless to say where is the Environmental Protection Agency now? How come the National Resources Defense Council or the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, or even the U.S. Department of Agriculture have not stepped in and made their demands clear? Why is big corporation getting away with insisting that these farmers use the pesticides that poison our water, and breed cattle by the thousands with no real humane way to butcher them and make sure all is done in a sanitized area and methods in place and implemented so that food is not contaminated? Big corporate farming is where the problem lies. The little farmer with his run offs and cleans up that need to happen, is not being forced to grow produce bigger and faster and hardier by use of pesticides and herbicides, they are not being forced to breed and raise cattle faster and bigger than the next farming corporation for a good price at market, disregarding all ethics in the mean time.
Environmental Agencies do affect our farmers and the economic societal life of our population, but are they making the changes that should be made? Our Nations farms are no longer the mom and pop farmers of the past, they are industry, and industry should be monitored. Industry should be monitored by the agencies that can make sure the standards of food and water are safe for the population, and try to do so with improving our Nations economic backbone instead of breaking it.
References
Natural Resources Defense Council. Facts about Pollution. Revised January 13, 2011
Retrieved June 12, 2011 from
http://www.nrdc.org/water/pollution/ffarms.asphttp://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/90045549?
Occupational Safety & Health Administration. Agriculture Operations. United States Department of
Labor. Last Reviewed January 22, 2009. Retrieved June 12, 2011 from
http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/agricultureoperations/index.html
Ramstack, T. California Farmers Complain to Congress About Environmental Regulations.
April 19, 2011. All Headline News. Retrieved June 14, 2011 from http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/90045549?California%20farmers%20complain%20to%20Congress%20about%20environmental%20regulations
Government Regulations by Jose Corona
Jose Corona
Environmental Studies
Warner Pacific College
June 10, 2011
Government regulations pertaining to the environment can sometimes be more than just a few laws that are handed down. These laws that are meant to do the right thing, but are causing a lot of turmoil to the businesses and land owners that are involved. The majority of people in the United States want more regulations, but are not are not fully aware of all the implications that are involved. There is a lot of disagreement with the government over regulations that perhaps the government was not aware of, in terms of how businesses are being affected. Much dispute comes out of these regulations that are handed down to the public. There is two sides, on one hand you have the government enforcing these laws because it is much needed to help and save our environment and on the hand you have these businesses and land owners that are furious with the government over these rulings that have caused them much grief. With pollution, economic downturn, and global warming on the arise, one thing is for sure something needs to be done, whether businesses give in to the governments demands or the government becomes more lenient towards these businesses.
Let’s start with land owners, the Fifth Amendment states that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation, which the courts have interpreted this clause as the” taking clause”. This bans the government from taking away your private property and it also ensure you from regulatory taking. Regulatory taking is when a government law deprives a property owner of all or some economic use of his or her property (Withgott, Bennan, 2010). This amendment is brought up when zoning comes to the forefront of a region; zoning involves government restrictions on the use of private land and represents a top-down constrain on personal property rights. Zoning is meant to keep certain businesses from entering specific neighborhoods, zoning also gives home buyers and business owners security because they know in advance what types of development can developed in that particular area. Zoning from the governments’ perception sounds like a high-quality decision. Now let us take a look at zoning from a landowners perception, the landowner might see this as a violation to his or hers right to the Fifth Amendment. The land owner might want to make good use of his or her land space, but if regulations are imposed and prohibits the land owner from maximizing the use of the land, then this is entitles the owner his or her day in court. This is exactly what happened to a South Carolina man named Lucas. Lucas a land developer who purchased beach property in 1986 for $975,000 was a prime example of how zoning affected his development. In 1988, before Lucas began developing on the beach front, a law was passed that banned constructions on eroding beaches. The land that Lucas owned was declared as an eroding beach and prohibited residential construction. Lucas believing that this constituted as a regulatory taking, filed and asked the lower courts to compensate him because his Fifth Amendment had been violated. The lower court ruled sided with Lucas and compensated him with $1.2 million dollars, but the case was overruled by the state supreme court. Lucas was forced to take his case all the way to U.S Supreme court, which eventually ruled in favor with Lucas (Withgott, Bennan, 2010). This was a prime example how government regulations are not always clear and concise according to land owners.
Cases like the Lucas vs. South Carolina Coastal Council have left many people wondering if government knows what’s best for our communities. “Many citizens and policy experts began to feel that the legislative and regulatory means used to achieve environmental policy goals too often imposed economic burdens on businesses and personal burdens on individuals” (Withgott, Bennan, 2010, p. 178). Pressure from businesses and citizens pushed back the efforts of government regulations, such as the years that Ronald Regan and George Bush were presidents, these administrations weakened environmental laws for years that followed.
Although businesses seemed to be fighting back against government regulations and with the help of certain political administrations behind them, things began to change. The change came when Barack Obama became president, along with the enhanced Democratic majorities in Congress; a new wave of policies hit the nation as a whole. Policies that was not only effective to our environment but also our society at large. The policies that I am referring to are The Recovery Act and Reinvestment Act. The Recovery Act and Reinvestment Act is an act that includes more than $80 billion dollars in the generation of renewable energy sources, expanding manufacturing capacity for clean energy technology, advancing vehicle and fuel technologies, and building a bigger, better, smarter electric grid, all while creating new, sustainable jobs. The Recovery Act was responsible for 2 million jobs or even more nationwide in the first year alone. The Recovery Act has laid the groundwork for a new clean energy economy, revitalized infrastructure and transportation, and it has helped transform health information technology to stay competitive for years to come (Whitehouse.Gov). These policies enable the government to help the environment, communities, businesses, as well as individuals. Looking at it from this standpoint, it appears that the government knows what they are doing, because they are taking care of all the critical issues of today’s topics.
Issues like these are just a small example why people favor or are against governmental regulations. Favoritism really depends on subjective experience, it depends who is being affected by the policy and whether it can be used beneficially to the people involved. My personal view on government regulation is that it is not a self solving issue, it will take years and efforts by all of us that are involved, and I think in the end pollution and global warming will not let us decide who is right. I think that it is going to get really bad and that government will have to oversee all our problems. In the end it will be the government that will decide what is more important, whether the business stays up or it comes down due to the harmful effects it may have toward the environment.
References
Withgott, J., & Bennan, S. (2010). Environment: The Science Behind the Stories (4th
Ed.). New York. Pearson Benjamin Cummings
http://www.whitehouse.gov/recovery Retrieved on June 12, 2011
Environmental Studies
Warner Pacific College
June 10, 2011
Government regulations pertaining to the environment can sometimes be more than just a few laws that are handed down. These laws that are meant to do the right thing, but are causing a lot of turmoil to the businesses and land owners that are involved. The majority of people in the United States want more regulations, but are not are not fully aware of all the implications that are involved. There is a lot of disagreement with the government over regulations that perhaps the government was not aware of, in terms of how businesses are being affected. Much dispute comes out of these regulations that are handed down to the public. There is two sides, on one hand you have the government enforcing these laws because it is much needed to help and save our environment and on the hand you have these businesses and land owners that are furious with the government over these rulings that have caused them much grief. With pollution, economic downturn, and global warming on the arise, one thing is for sure something needs to be done, whether businesses give in to the governments demands or the government becomes more lenient towards these businesses.
Let’s start with land owners, the Fifth Amendment states that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation, which the courts have interpreted this clause as the” taking clause”. This bans the government from taking away your private property and it also ensure you from regulatory taking. Regulatory taking is when a government law deprives a property owner of all or some economic use of his or her property (Withgott, Bennan, 2010). This amendment is brought up when zoning comes to the forefront of a region; zoning involves government restrictions on the use of private land and represents a top-down constrain on personal property rights. Zoning is meant to keep certain businesses from entering specific neighborhoods, zoning also gives home buyers and business owners security because they know in advance what types of development can developed in that particular area. Zoning from the governments’ perception sounds like a high-quality decision. Now let us take a look at zoning from a landowners perception, the landowner might see this as a violation to his or hers right to the Fifth Amendment. The land owner might want to make good use of his or her land space, but if regulations are imposed and prohibits the land owner from maximizing the use of the land, then this is entitles the owner his or her day in court. This is exactly what happened to a South Carolina man named Lucas. Lucas a land developer who purchased beach property in 1986 for $975,000 was a prime example of how zoning affected his development. In 1988, before Lucas began developing on the beach front, a law was passed that banned constructions on eroding beaches. The land that Lucas owned was declared as an eroding beach and prohibited residential construction. Lucas believing that this constituted as a regulatory taking, filed and asked the lower courts to compensate him because his Fifth Amendment had been violated. The lower court ruled sided with Lucas and compensated him with $1.2 million dollars, but the case was overruled by the state supreme court. Lucas was forced to take his case all the way to U.S Supreme court, which eventually ruled in favor with Lucas (Withgott, Bennan, 2010). This was a prime example how government regulations are not always clear and concise according to land owners.
Cases like the Lucas vs. South Carolina Coastal Council have left many people wondering if government knows what’s best for our communities. “Many citizens and policy experts began to feel that the legislative and regulatory means used to achieve environmental policy goals too often imposed economic burdens on businesses and personal burdens on individuals” (Withgott, Bennan, 2010, p. 178). Pressure from businesses and citizens pushed back the efforts of government regulations, such as the years that Ronald Regan and George Bush were presidents, these administrations weakened environmental laws for years that followed.
Although businesses seemed to be fighting back against government regulations and with the help of certain political administrations behind them, things began to change. The change came when Barack Obama became president, along with the enhanced Democratic majorities in Congress; a new wave of policies hit the nation as a whole. Policies that was not only effective to our environment but also our society at large. The policies that I am referring to are The Recovery Act and Reinvestment Act. The Recovery Act and Reinvestment Act is an act that includes more than $80 billion dollars in the generation of renewable energy sources, expanding manufacturing capacity for clean energy technology, advancing vehicle and fuel technologies, and building a bigger, better, smarter electric grid, all while creating new, sustainable jobs. The Recovery Act was responsible for 2 million jobs or even more nationwide in the first year alone. The Recovery Act has laid the groundwork for a new clean energy economy, revitalized infrastructure and transportation, and it has helped transform health information technology to stay competitive for years to come (Whitehouse.Gov). These policies enable the government to help the environment, communities, businesses, as well as individuals. Looking at it from this standpoint, it appears that the government knows what they are doing, because they are taking care of all the critical issues of today’s topics.
Issues like these are just a small example why people favor or are against governmental regulations. Favoritism really depends on subjective experience, it depends who is being affected by the policy and whether it can be used beneficially to the people involved. My personal view on government regulation is that it is not a self solving issue, it will take years and efforts by all of us that are involved, and I think in the end pollution and global warming will not let us decide who is right. I think that it is going to get really bad and that government will have to oversee all our problems. In the end it will be the government that will decide what is more important, whether the business stays up or it comes down due to the harmful effects it may have toward the environment.
References
Withgott, J., & Bennan, S. (2010). Environment: The Science Behind the Stories (4th
Ed.). New York. Pearson Benjamin Cummings
http://www.whitehouse.gov/recovery Retrieved on June 12, 2011
Safe Drinking Water Act by Janine Anderson
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)
Janine Anderson
Environmental Studies PHS 100A
David Terrell Ph. D.
Warner Pacific College
June 11, 2011
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) is the federal law that was written in 1974 to ensure Americans that their drinking water is safe to consume. It was then amended in 1986 and again in 1996 to require several actions to protect the resources: rivers, lakes, reservoirs, springs and ground water wells. There are many threats to drinking water: improperly disposed chemicals, animal and human waste, pesticides, waste that are injected underground as well as naturally-occurring substances which can all contaminate our drinking water. (United States Envi-ronmental Protection Agency, 2011) How the water is treated and processed can all pose a health risk. There are so many facets to the SDWA, not only what is in our water, but maintaining the infrastructure, financing and what happens when our water is contaminated. Who cleans up the mess? Who pays for the clean up?
I think that the United States is doing a better job at keeping our drinking water safe then oth-er countries. We all know someone that has gone to another country and ended up sick from the water. It is a known fact that when you travel over seas that you should not drink the water and brush your teeth with the tap water to avoid getting sick. However, even though the United States has a much better system for keeping water safe, it is still an ongoing problem. There are some areas of our country that have major problems. For example, in Charleston West Virginia their water has been completely contaminated from the coalmines, to the point that people are getting brain tumors and are dying. Even the children cannot even play in the bathtub because they get severe rashes and the water burns their skin. I do not understand how this kind of thing is happening with all of the regulations and laws for dumping waste.
Here in Portland Oregon I am still amazed how many times you here on the news that there was an accidental spill of raw sewage or chemicals in the Willamette River. It is then broadcast that for a few days you are not supposed to swim in the river. No one cleans up the mess; they just wait until it floats down stream and becomes more diluted. More needs to be done to keep these types of incidents from happening. This also affects the fish in the rivers that we eat.
I believe every person has a role in keeping our water clean and safe, not only for drinking, but for swimming or bathing our children. We need to be cautious about not polluting the water or using chemicals on the ground that can seep into the water tables. Storms also can be detri-ment to our waterways because of flooding. Being prepared for what to do after a storm incase your drinking water is compromised. Using water efficiently is also important; it helps to reduce the demand on our water supplies. When it comes down to it, we all just need to be involved in keeping our water safe. Get involved in your local government and do your part.
References
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Initials. (2011, May 16). Safe drinking water act (SDWA). Retrieved from http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/sdwa/index.cfm
Janine Anderson
Environmental Studies PHS 100A
David Terrell Ph. D.
Warner Pacific College
June 11, 2011
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) is the federal law that was written in 1974 to ensure Americans that their drinking water is safe to consume. It was then amended in 1986 and again in 1996 to require several actions to protect the resources: rivers, lakes, reservoirs, springs and ground water wells. There are many threats to drinking water: improperly disposed chemicals, animal and human waste, pesticides, waste that are injected underground as well as naturally-occurring substances which can all contaminate our drinking water. (United States Envi-ronmental Protection Agency, 2011) How the water is treated and processed can all pose a health risk. There are so many facets to the SDWA, not only what is in our water, but maintaining the infrastructure, financing and what happens when our water is contaminated. Who cleans up the mess? Who pays for the clean up?
I think that the United States is doing a better job at keeping our drinking water safe then oth-er countries. We all know someone that has gone to another country and ended up sick from the water. It is a known fact that when you travel over seas that you should not drink the water and brush your teeth with the tap water to avoid getting sick. However, even though the United States has a much better system for keeping water safe, it is still an ongoing problem. There are some areas of our country that have major problems. For example, in Charleston West Virginia their water has been completely contaminated from the coalmines, to the point that people are getting brain tumors and are dying. Even the children cannot even play in the bathtub because they get severe rashes and the water burns their skin. I do not understand how this kind of thing is happening with all of the regulations and laws for dumping waste.
Here in Portland Oregon I am still amazed how many times you here on the news that there was an accidental spill of raw sewage or chemicals in the Willamette River. It is then broadcast that for a few days you are not supposed to swim in the river. No one cleans up the mess; they just wait until it floats down stream and becomes more diluted. More needs to be done to keep these types of incidents from happening. This also affects the fish in the rivers that we eat.
I believe every person has a role in keeping our water clean and safe, not only for drinking, but for swimming or bathing our children. We need to be cautious about not polluting the water or using chemicals on the ground that can seep into the water tables. Storms also can be detri-ment to our waterways because of flooding. Being prepared for what to do after a storm incase your drinking water is compromised. Using water efficiently is also important; it helps to reduce the demand on our water supplies. When it comes down to it, we all just need to be involved in keeping our water safe. Get involved in your local government and do your part.
References
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Initials. (2011, May 16). Safe drinking water act (SDWA). Retrieved from http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/sdwa/index.cfm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)