Regulatory Policy - RegWatch

RegWatch:

News & Analysis | REG•WATCH Blog | Press Room

Monday, September 25, 2006

Judge Reinstates Roadless Rules
A California judge overturned a 2005 regulation that would have allowed state governors to petition the Forest Service to develop land protected under the Clinton-era roadless rule. The Clinton rule sought to protect 60 million acres of national forests from development. But the Bush administration has repeatedly attempted to undermine the regulations.

Now, U.S. Magistrate Elizabeth Laporte has issued another blow to developers by by overturning the 2005 regulation thereby reinstating the roadless rule. Laporte claimed the Bush administration violated federal environmental laws by failing to conduct environmental analysis before issuing the regulation. The decision is a major victory for the four western states (California, New Mexico, Oregon and Washington) and 20 environmental groups who filed suit over the legislation. It goes without saying that it’s also a great win for the nation’s forests and those who care to protect them.

Read Laporte’s opinion.

Posted by Genevieve Smith, 12:51:52 PM

Tuesday, September 19, 2006

A Hybrid Car, An Environmentalist Does Not Make
In her latest column, Cindy Skrzycki of The Washington Post summarizes the opposing view points of OMB Watch and the Mercatus Center over the nomination of former Mercatus Regulatory Program Director Susan Dudley to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs:

OMB Watch and Public Citizen . . . released a 68-page report last week using Dudley's writings to attack her. It chastised her for ties to corporate donors and for what it called "Dudleynomics," an emphasis on free-market solutions to health and safety issues at the public's expense.
The study said Dudley has suggested that the Environmental Protection Agency leave it up to individual communities to control arsenic in their water; that publicly releasing information on toxics may be more costly than it's worth; and that regulators' "one-size-fits-all" approach to vehicle airbags eliminates consumer choice.
The Mercatus Center called the report "incomplete and biased" against Dudley and the center.

And how does Mercatus set the record straight?

Dudley's backers point to what they call her personal commitment to environmental stewardship, noting that she and her husband, Brian Mannix, the EPA's associate administrator for policy, economics and innovation, drove hybrid cars before hybrids were cool. Her profile on the Mercatus Center Web site says she enjoys hiking, canoeing and fly fishing.

The rationalization that driving a hybrid car somehow gives Dudley her environmental merit badge is somewhat ludicrous. Dudley's choice to drive a hybrid could very well have more to do with the economics of rising gas costs than a commitment to the environment. Even if Dudley does have a personal commitment to the environment, her writings, documented thoroughly in the report, still clearly express an economic and political position that is very hostile to public protections. Indeed, Dudley's driving habits are congruent with Mercatus's anti-regulatory philosophy. As Skrzycki explains:

The center -- whose board of directors includes Edwin Meese , attorney general under President Ronald Reagan ; Vernon Smith , a George Mason professor who shared the Nobel Prize for economics in 2002; and Charles Koch , chief executive of Koch Industries Inc . -- regards regulations as a hidden tax on American consumers. It has urged the Bush administration to pay more attention to market solutions and allow Americans to make their own choices about the need for regulation.

In Dudley's worldview, there's no inconsistency between making the personal choice to save on gas, while opposing standards to keep our air clean and our cars fuel efficient. Seems bizarre? It's called Dudleynomics.

Posted by Genevieve Smith, 10:47:22 PM

Wednesday, September 13, 2006

Latest Watcher
Be sure to check out the latest issue of our biweekly newsletter, The Watcher. Reg policy articles this time:

Criticism of Draft Risk Assessment Bulletin May Delay Implementation

Report Finds Dudley Unfit to Serve

Posted by Genevieve Smith, 08:52:51 AM

The Cost is Too High
Read OMB Watch and Public Citizen's new report on the White House's radical nominee for OIRA, Susan Dudley.

Posted by Genevieve Smith, 08:41:18 AM

Monday, September 11, 2006

White House Strips Whistleblower Protections from Clean Air Act
According to documents obtained by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, the Bush administration has waived whistleblower protections under the Clean Air Act and the Solid Waste Disposal Act. Acting Assistant Attorney General Steve Bradbury wrote a memo in 2005 detailing why whistleblower protections do not apply under the acts. According to PEER,

The opinion and the ruling reverse nearly two decades of precedent. Approximately 170,000 federal employees working within environmental agencies are affected by the loss of whistleblower rights.
“The Bush administration is engineering the stealth repeal of whistleblower protections,” stated PEER General Counsel Richard Condit, who had won several of the earlier cases applying environmental whistleblower protections to federal specialists. “The use of an unpublished opinion to change official interpretations is a giant step backward to the days of the secret Star Chamber.” PEER ultimately obtained a copy of the opinion under the Freedom of Information Act.
At the same time, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking a more extreme position that absolutely no environmental laws protect its employees from reprisal. EPA’s stance would place the provisions of all major federal environmental laws, such as the Clean Air Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act, beyond the reach of federal employees seeking legal protection for good faith efforts to enforce or implement the anti-pollution provisions contained within those laws.

This news was also published in the Center for Science in the Public Interest's new newsletter on politics in science. If you don't already receive CSPI's excellent Integrity in Science Watch newsletter, I highly recommend it. They report on some pretty appalling cases of industry influence, conflicts of interest and other ways in which science is subverted to serve special interests over the public.

Posted by Genevieve Smith, 08:25:14 PM

Latest Entries by Theme

Cost-Benefit Analysis