Being an old-fashioned sorta guy, one who can actually remember a world without cell phones, TIVOs, DVDs, VCRs, personal computers and, for that matter, this here interweb, I sometimes still amuse myself by going down to my local barely-staying-in-business stationery shop and purchasing something called a newspaper. I don't do this as often as I used to, because the newspaper of record now fetches the astounding sum of 2 bucks on weekdays--but anyhow, yesterday was one of those amuse-myself kind of days, and as I was perusing my Tuesday New York Times I happened to stumble over this little tidbit, buried unobtrusively below the fold on page 16:
The Supreme Court ruled Monday that the Clean Water Act does not prevent the Army Corps of Engineers from allowing mining waste to be dumped into rivers, streams and other waters.
The article goes on to state that SCOTUS concluded that it was perfectly legal for the Army Corps of Engineers to permit Coeur Alaska Inc., a gold mining company, to dump over 4 million tons of toxic slurry into Lower Slate Lake, near Juneau, thereby obliterating all life in said lake. According to the esteemed judgement of Roberts et. al., there was nothing in the Clean Water Act that prevented the corps from making that decision.
Huh. That's odd, I thought. I mean, doesn't the CWA, right at the top, explicitly say this?...
(1) it is the national goal that the discharge of pollutants into the navigable waters be eliminated by 1985;
And this?
(3) it is the national policy that the discharge of toxic pollutants in toxic amounts be prohibited;
Okay, I'm no legal scholar, but, notwithstanding that quaint target date twenty years past already--doesn't dumping enough incredibly poisonous mining waste to kill all life in a lake qualify as "discharge of pollutants?" I'm no environmental scientist either, but I also have a nagging suspicion that 4.5 MILLION TONS qualifies as a "toxic amount."
Well, silly me. It turns out that the Bush Administration (remember them?) decided that the EPA didn't really have to be the regulatory body to rule on such matters, because--well, gosh, they're likely to actually regulate stuff! Even though, of course, the ACTUAL LAW says this:
...the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (hereinafter in this Act called "Administrator") shall administer this Act.
In case we fail to grasp the truly historic shame of this decision, check out this little fun fact from the local press:
It's the first time in 30 years a U.S. mine will be allowed to transform a natural lake into a tailings pond.
Ever helpful to chime in with a predictably noxious opinion, Governor Palin hailed SCOTUS's greenlight to turn a natural lake into a toxic waste dump as "good news on responsible development" for Alaska. One shudders to think at her definition of "irresponsible development."
The fallout from the Bush Administration's assault on the environment, carried out by their friends and cronies in industry, allowed by neutered regulatory bodies and abetted by the ever-reliable, conservative-packed Supreme Court, continues unabated. And it barely merits a few paragraphs on page sixteen of the newspaper of record.
So, just to review, under the logic of the Roberts court:
1.) The EPA has no right to regulate what the law states it must regulate.
2.) Killing an entire lake with poisonous waste is okay.
3.) The Governor of Alaska thinks it's a fine idea, too.
Have a nice day.