The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s “see-no-evil” posture on
federal law barring appointment of state permit issuers with recent
financial ties to regulated industry has effectively gutted the Clean
Water Act's key anti-conflict safeguard, according to a group of
environmental advocacy organizations.
The organizations, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility
(PEER), the Florida Clean Water Network, and the Androscoggin River
Alliance, say EPA is ignoring blatant violations of this important
protection and thereby encourages states to violate it, pointing to two
recent cases: In Florida, EPA has dithered for nearly a year without
action. In Maine, the administrator resigned due to a parallel state law
which has since been weakened while EPA stayed silent.
The federal Clean Water Act bars appointment of any state
decision-maker on pollution discharge permits who “has during the
previous two years received a significant portion of his income directly
or indirectly from permit holders or applicants for a permit.”
Nonetheless, at least two states have recently done just that. Both
conflicted environmental nominees were confirmed and then challenged by
environmental groups; one was ousted and one remains but in both cases
EPA remained on the sideline.
Nearly a year ago, on February 23, 2011, PEER and Florida Clean Water
Network filed a legal complaint with EPA that Herschel Vinyard,
Florida’s environmental secretary, and another top appointee should be
legally barred from issuing water pollution permits due to Vinyard’s
prior employment on behalf of shipyards. The groups even submitted
Vinyard’s sworn filings that he had worked for a regulated industry
immediately prior to his appointment as Secretary of the Department of
Environmental Protection (DEP).
In the ensuing months, EPA has issued three status letters, each more
noncommittal than its predecessor. The last letter from EPA Regional
Administrator Gwendolyn Keyes-Fleming on January 19, 2012 states:
“We are continuing to evaluate the information included with your
letter, and the significant issues raised by that information. In light
of the significant issues raised, we are coordinating our response on
the matter with appropriate staff and management, both within the EPA
Region 4 and offices in EPA’s Headquarters.”
read more@examiner.com
read more@examiner.com
No comments:
Post a Comment