Law & Policy

Details

Written by charlie

Category: Law & Policy

Published: 15 April 2016

Created: 15 April 2016

Last Updated: 15 August 2017

The duck stamp, a brilliant Depression era idea, is a work of art, tax and wetland conservation tool rolled into one. Selling for $25, an amazing 98% of the proceeds from selling the duck stamps are used to fund conservation purchases and easements nationwide. The beautiful art on the stamp is the result of a very competitive competition, and is limited to depicting a migratory bird. Beyond funding conservation, the purchase of the stamp allowes the holder to hunt migratory birds on Federal lands during the open season.

Despite its successes, the program has not been raising as much money as it had in the past. Driving the change are demographics, over the past 50 years, the hunting population has both shrunk and grown older.

In an attempt to address this shortfall, and appeal to a larger pool of of nature lovers, including birders and others not likely to pick up and go bird hunting, it has been proposed that a bird other than a migratory bird be placed aside the traditional waterfowl on the duck stamp.

Due to both it effectiveness and popularity, changes to the duck stamp program are not taken lightly, even if design changes expected to expand its appeal to both hunters and birders are made. I’m of the mind if the duck stamp isn't raising as much money as it had in the past, why not commission a 2nd stamp, solely for raising conservation funds without the waterfowl or even bird requirement?

Duck stamps are works of art in their own right with a rich history, I don't think either hunters or birders would get their feathers ruffled if the duck stamp remains true to its heritage.

More info on the duck stamp program here

 

Details

Written by charlie

Category: Legal

Published: 11 September 2015

Created: 10 September 2015

Last Updated: 10 September 2015

Under Waters of the United States (WOTUS), 2 million miles of streams and 20 million acres of wetlands that provide drinking water would be designated as protected under the Clean Water Act.

After a lengthy public comment period which gathered over 900,000 comments, the vast majority of which were in support of the proposed changes, the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers rolled out the rule on August 28th 2015 to clarify the Clean Water Act and protect smaller streams, tributaries and wetlands that had fallen outside of the Clean Water Acts reach.

Over the past 15 years, the ability of the Clean Water Act to protect wetlands has diminished, primarily due to two Supreme Court rulings in 2001 and 2006. In Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. Army Corps of Engineers (2001), the court ruled that the EPA could no longer use the migratory bird rule to assert jurisdiction over isolated waters. In Rapanos v. United States (2006), the Supreme Court decided the EPA could not regulate isolated wetlands, as they did not fall within the purview of the “navigable waters" of the United States as cited in section 404 of the Clean Water Act.

Combined, both of these decisions left as much as 60 percent of the nation's streams and millions of acres of wetlands with uncertain Federal protection. Recent studies have concluded that since these rulings were made, the drainage and conversion of wetlands has increased significantly.

The new rule, built on the best science available, attempts to clarify which waterways are afforded protection while leaving previous exemptions unchanged. It would only force a permitting process only if a business or landowner took steps that would pollute or destroy the affected waters — those with a "direct and significant" connection to larger bodies of water downstream that are already protected. That could include tributaries that show evidence of flowing water, for example.

Despite heated arguments to the contrary, many farming practices have, and will remain, exempt from the Clean Water Act, as they have been since the Act's inception in 1972.

Predictably, the American Farm Bureau Federation, the US Poultry & Egg Association and other farm and business organizations have fought the ruling, both in the court room and court of public opinion, using the "#Ditchtherule" social media campaign. The EPA and other organizations have also taken to social media using the "#Cleanwaterrules" hashtag to drum up support for the rule.

Based on the argument that the rule is too expansive and infringes upon states rights, a Federal court blocked the rule in 13 central and Western states: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota and Wyoming. Interestingly enough, these states are know to have some of the weakest laws protecting wetlands and clean water, and would benefit the most from WOTUS.

This promises to be one of the largest clean water fights, and will likely drag on for years, but has the potential to make sweeping changes in the conservation and protection of wetlands and watercourses.Despite heated arguments to the contrary, many farming practices have, and will remain, exempt from the Clean Water Act, as they have been since the Act's inception in 1972.

Sources and Additional Reading:
http://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2015/08/28/epa-clean-water-rule-in-effect-despite-court-ruling
http://www2.epa.gov/cleanwaterrule
http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2000/2000_99_1178