Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Credo Mobile

HOME

ABOUT US

OUR ISSUES

Federal Budget

Information & Access

Nonprofit Advocacy


PRESS ROOM

ACTION CENTER

PUBLICATIONS

THE WATCHER

OUR BLOGS


SIGN UP

Receive news, updates, and alerts!

DONATE

Help support our work


OTHER SITES

FedSpending.org

RTK NET

NPAction

Working Group on Community Right-to-Know

Citizens for Sensible Safeguards

Open the Government

OMB Watch Logo

"[P]eople acting in a group can accomplish things which no individual acting alone could even hope to bring about." - FDR

Home :  Regulatory Policy :  RegWatch : 
RegWatch:     

News & Analysis | REG•WATCH Blog | Press Room

 R    E    G    •    W    A    T    C    H 


Friday, May 30, 2008

New Book on Environmental Policy

Two MIT professors, Nicholas A. Ashford and Charles C. Caldart, have just written a book called Environmental Law, Policy, and Economics. From the summary:

This book offers a detailed discussion of the important issues in environmental law, policy, and economics, tracing their development over the past few decades through an examination of environmental law cases and commentaries by leading scholars. The authors focus on pollution, addressing both pollution control and prevention, but also emphasize the evaluation, design, and use of the law to stimulate technical change and industrial transformation, arguing that there is a need to address broader issues of sustainable development.

While the book gets into the nuts and bolts of environmental policy, it also discusses where environmental policy intersects with administrative law (chapter 5) and information disclosure (chapter 10).

Find out more here.



Posted by Matt Madia, 04:12:43 PM



Friday, May 23, 2008

Krill Rule Clears White House, Opens for Comment

On Tuesday, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) proposed a rule to ban the harvest of krill in U.S. waters off the west coast. Krill are small shrimp-like crustaceans abundant in the Pacific Ocean. They are a vital link in the marine food chain and serve as a food source for a variety of marine animals including whales, salmon and some sea birds.

NOAA proposed the rule after the White House delayed the agency from moving forward for almost a year. In May 2007, NOAA submitted an earlier draft of the proposed rule to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) — the White House office in charge of clearing federal regulations. But, with suspect rationale, OIRA rejected NOAA's proposal.

OIRA's administrator, Susan Dudley, complained NOAA did not adequately identify the need for regulation since krill is "completely unexploited" and "there are no known plans for exploitation."

True, NOAA proposed the policy even though krill is not currently fished in U.S. waters. However, NOAA experts recognized an opportunity to take a proactive step toward maintaining a sustainable marine ecosystem. In its proposal, NOAA's Pacific Fishery Management Council states, "The Council has agreed it is critical to take preventive action at this time to ensure that a krill fishery will not develop that could potentially harm krill stocks, and in turn harm other fish and non-fish stocks."

The good news is, on Tuesday, the rule was released in basically the same form as NOAA had initially proposed to OIRA. It seems OIRA did not object to the nature of the rule but rather the argument in favor of it.

In order to meet OIRA's objections, NOAA simply couched the need for the rule differently. Originally, NOAA did not acknowledge the existence of a market for krill, instead arguing the measure was precautionary. OIRA complained that since there is no market, there is no reason to regulate. Now, NOAA says, "A market for krill currently exists in Washington and Oregon, where salmon farms use krill products as a supplemental feed." It seems that magic sentence allowed the rule to gain the approval of OIRA.

But bottom line, krill and the marine species that depend on it are one step closer to receiving federal protections. Michael LeVine of Oceana, a nonprofit conservation group, called the proposal "a watershed moment for responsible ocean management and conservation." He added, "We commend all the policymakers involved in implementing the kind of proactive visionary protection we need to move forward with healthy and resilient ocean ecosystems."

Comments on the rule are due June 19.

Posted by Matt Madia, 03:47:13 PM



Thursday, May 15, 2008

Polar Bear Called "Threatened," Federal Protection to Follow

Yesterday, after a period of long delay, the Department of the Interior announced it would list the polar bear as a "threatened" species under the Endangered Species Act. Designating a species as threatened is not as serious as calling it endangered, but it still affords the species federal protections and special considerations.

The debate over whether to list the polar bear has been a hot button issue, because the main threat to the species is global climate change which is affecting the ice cover and sea conditions the bear needs to subsist.

Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne said that the decision to list the polar bear under the Act does not permit the federal government to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. "Protecting the polar bear under the Endangered Species Act is a major step forward, but the Bush Administration has proposed using loopholes in the law to allow the greatest threat to the polar bear — global warming pollution — to continue unabated," said Andrew Wetzler, Director of the Endangered Species Project at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC).

Although Kempthorne is passing the buck on climate change, that doesn't mean the decision is a hollow one. Climate change is not the only threat to the polar bear. Man's physical intrusion into polar bear habitats can add unnecessary peril to a sensitive situation; industrial activities can disrupt any species' lifestyle.

In fact, the reason the Interior Department delayed the decision to deem the polar bear as threatened was because it needed to hurriedly approve permits for oil and gas extraction in parts of Alaska where the polar bear lives. The department was legally required to make its decision in January but stalled while its division in charge of minerals extraction doled out permits to big polluters. Environmentalists sued, and a court ordered Interior to make the decision by May 15.

Because of the listing decision, future actions that benefit special interests at the polar bear's expense will not be so easy. According to NRDC, "Listing the polar bear guarantees federal agencies will be obligated to ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out will not jeopardize the polar bears' continued existence or adversely modify their critical habitat, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will be required to prepare a recovery plan for the polar bear, specifying measures necessary for its protection." That's good news for the polar bear.



Posted by Matt Madia, 11:25:54 AM



Monday, May 05, 2008

Gade Ouster Will Have Chilling Effect on Environmental Regulators

The head administrator for EPA's Midwest Region, Mary Gade, resigned last week amid a political firestorm. Aides to EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson "told her to quit or be fired by June 1," according to the Chicago Tribune.

Gade claims she was forced out because she was trying to make Dow Chemical clean-up soil and sediment contaminated with dioxin, a highly toxic chemical and known carcinogen, in Saginaw Bay and Lake Huron. Dow has been dragging its feet on efforts to clean up the chemical which is emitted by its Midland, MI plant. Gade ordered Dow to begin dredging last year "when it was revealed that dioxin levels along a park in Saginaw were 1.6 million parts per trillion, the highest amount ever found in the U.S," according to the Tribune.

Gade was a Bush appointee, and a former corporate attorney who "had represented big companies like Dow against environmental regulators." Senior EPA officials are staying tight-lipped about Gade's resignation, but she told the Tribune she is certain it is a result of her aggressive pursuit of Dow: "On Thursday, Gade said of her resignation: 'There's no question this is about Dow. I stand behind what I did and what my staff did. I'm proud of what we did.' "

Ultimately, it doesn't matter whether Dow was the reason Gade was fired. EPA brass could say they fired Gade for stealing paper clips, but the damage is done: EPA officials on the ground will think twice next time they are considering aggressively enforcing environmental regulations, for fear of losing their jobs.



Posted by Matt Madia, 01:29:05 PM




Latest Entries by Theme

All Themes

Enforcement

About This Blog

Rollbacks

Safety

Industry Influence

Cost-Benefit Analysis

In Congress

Publications

Consumer Issues

Environment

Public Health

In the Courts

Oversight

In the White House

Most Recent Entries for RegWatch

Senate Moves Bill to Renew Federal Improvement Panel

After Preemption Row, Roof Strength Rule Delayed

Consumers Left in the Dark on Food Safety

Regulatory Attacks on Medicaid Halted

OMB Shutting Out EPA on CO2 Regulation

Bush Regulatory Gatekeepers on House Chopping Block

Lobbyists Opposing FDA Changes

It All Depends on Who You Ask

For Workplace Injuries, Underreporting is under Fire

Tomato Toll in the Thousands, CDC Says

Archived Entries for Environment

June

May

April

March

February

January

December, 2007

November, 2007

October, 2007

September, 2007

August, 2007

July, 2007

June, 2007

May, 2007

April, 2007

March, 2007

February, 2007

January, 2007

December, 2006

November, 2006

October, 2006

September, 2006

August, 2006

June, 2006

May, 2006

April, 2006

March, 2006

February, 2006

January, 2006

December, 2005

November, 2005

October, 2005

September, 2005

August, 2005

July, 2005

June, 2005

May, 2005

April, 2005

March, 2005

February, 2005

January, 2005

December, 2004

November, 2004

October, 2004

September, 2004