Re: wetlands

Marcia Watson-Whitmyre (mww@UDel.Edu)
Thu, 22 Jan 1998 12:16:01 -0500


This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------844BCA9E59EDAA33BCA5BDBB
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Perhaps Maryland birders would like to reply to this editorial on the recent
court ruling regarding wetlands protection in our federal court district.  The
editorial was passed on to me by Linda Bystrak (thanks, Linda), who in turn got
it from a member of the MD Conservation Council.

>  This is the text of an editorial by the Baltimore Sun that appeared
> Jan 15.  So far no Letters to the Editor have appeared on the subject. Please
> consider sending off a letter that commends their editorial and demonstrates
> our concern about this ruling and the implication that it can undo protections
> for isolated wetlands (give examples if you can).

>   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  [Image]              Fighting for wetlands
>
>                       Court decision: Federal oversight crucial to
>                       protection of these valuable natural
>                       resources.
>
>                       A FEDERAL COURT DECISION overturning Army
>                       Corps of Engineers protection of invaluable
>                       wetlands itself must be reversed, or there
>                       will be dramatic consequences for the
>                       Chesapeake Bay.
>
>                       For decades, developers have argued that the
>                       federal law used by the corps to regulate all
>                       wetlands applied only to "navigable" waters,
>                       those related to transportation. That position
>                       has not prevailed in various legal cases.
>
>                       But a three-judge appellate panel last
>                       monthdeclared "invalid" the corps' authority
>                       over most freshwater wetlands in Maryland,
>                       Virginia and the rest of the mid-Atlantic
>                       district. The implications for nationwide
>                       protection of these natural resources -- water
>                       filters, flood and erosion controls, wildlife
>                       habitat -- is unsettling.
>
>                       Maryland could be a major loser in this
>                       environmental battle. While the state has its
>                       own wetlands protection and permit laws,
>                       federal oversight (potential or real) is a
>                       strong deterrent to wetlands destruction. It's
>                       a tool that Maryland lawmakers have used to
>                       prompt action by the state agency in enforcing
>                       the state law. While the corps has delegated
>                       much wetlands responsibility to the state, the
>                       federal agency retains legal authority.
>
>                       Maryland depends on its wetlands for critical
>                       environmental protections. Three-quarters of
>                       the state's marshland has been lost since
>                       Colonial times. Experts estimate that half the
>                       remaining 600,000 acres, and millions of acres
>                       nationwide, would be at risk under the 4th
>                       U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' decision.
>
>                       The appeals panel acted on the conviction of
>                       developer James J. Wilson. He was convicted of
>                       willful violation of federal wetlands law in
>                       building the community of St. Charles in
>                       Charles County. In a 2-1 decision, the panel
>                       ordered a new trial for Mr. Wilson, concluding
>                       that the government needed stronger evidence
>                       to prove his knowing violation of the law. But
>                       the panel majority also declared that the
>                       affected site was too remote from "navigable
>                       waters" for the corps to have jurisdiction.
>
>                       The Justice Department now has correctly asked
>                       the appeals court to reconsider its decision.
>                       Regardless of whether Mr. Wilson is retried,
>                       the appeals panel opinion seriously endangers
>                       our irreplaceable wetlands and our
>                       environment.
>
>                       -----------------------------------------------
>                       Originally Published on 1/15/98
>
>



--------------844BCA9E59EDAA33BCA5BDBB
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="vcard.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for Marcia Watson-Whitmyre
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="vcard.vcf"

begin:          vcard
fn:             Marcia Watson-Whitmyre
n:              Watson-Whitmyre;Marcia
org:            University of Delaware
adr:            234 Hullihen Hall;;University of Delaware;Newark;Delaware;19716;USA
email;internet: mww@udel.edu
title:          Assistant Director for Academic Policies Administration
tel;work:       302-831-6656
tel;fax:        302-831-8745
x-mozilla-cpt:  ;0
x-mozilla-html: FALSE
version:        2.1
end:            vcard


--------------844BCA9E59EDAA33BCA5BDBB--