(no subject)

Just to respond to a couple points (and I don't completely disagree with
them)...

> > I've encountered activist regulators who deliberately sandbag on issuing
permits
> > for completely legal projects simply because they're anti-development.
>
> Please allow me to correct what I perceive as a mis-wording: they're
> not "anti-developemnt".  They're "anti-destruction", because that's
> what SOME [1] so-called "developers" do.
>

While I do agree that many (if not most) regulators are anti-destruction
rather than anti-development, I can assure you that there _are_ regulators
who are anti-development.  I work in the transportation industry at present,
and have encountered this attitude on several occasions.  For example, in
the Corps of Engineers district I do most of my work in these days, the
current chief of the regulatory branch once said that he "didn't care if
another road were built in this state."  It was a fairly confrontational
meeting, and he made it plain that he was just against new road
construction, period, regardless of the need.  And the former state
coordinator of our Section 401 program told one of my current co-workers
(when _they_ worked together) that she routinely withheld water quality
certifications for transportation projects, even though they were completely
compliant with both CWA and NEPA, simply because she wanted to put the
brakes on highway construction.

But your point is also well-taken; I certainly expect my counterparts in the
regulatory arena to take their jobs seriously and do their best to protect
water resources from wanton destruction.

And some other points...

>   1) For every regulator that goes too far in favor of environmental
> protection, there are dozens that go too far to appease corporate
interests.
> Regulators are mindful of the political interests (campaign donors) of
their
> bosses, they are extremely deferential to corporate claims of economic
burden,
> and most often their lack of expertise forces them to blindly accept the
> technical information provided by the corporations they are regulating.
>

That could certainly be true, I guess.  In my experience, the feds aren't
very prone to pressure on run-of-the-mill applications which fill the bulk
of their application load, but occasionally a high-profile applicant
surfaces that can apply some pressure.  But keep in mind that they are still
governed by the law.  While that doesn't mean that there isn't some under
the table stuff going on, it's not as easy as you might think to slip things
through the process.  Environmental advocacy groups have a good amount of
influence, and aren't afraid to wield it.  That's why folks contribute to
them; they wouldn't send in money if they felt it was wasted.  Try to find a
Corps district where the Sierra Club isn't on the shortlist for public
notices...

And I don't necessarily think it's just a lack of expertise (in fact, many
of the regulators I work with have strong environmental sciences
backgrounds); you have to consider that, at least in CWA, there is an
absolute avalanche of applications coming in.  Far more than the folks in
most regulatory offices can handle within the timeframes allocated under
existing law.  They have a tough job, and I respect them for the work they
do.

>   2) What is technically "legal" is most often the result of special
interest
> lobbying and often does not reflect what is good for a particular
environment
> and the people who live there.

Perhaps, but legal is legal; if it's in compliance with existing laws, the
permits should be issued, etc.  Perhaps I'm not clear what you mean,
exactly.  A large part of the CWA process lies in the evaluation of public
interest; that's what the public notice period is for.  So there is
certainly some variability in what is permittable.  But the bottom line in
CWA permitting is that impacts must be avoided where possible, minimized
where avoidance isn't possible, and any remaining impacts _must_ be
mitigated for.  There's no wiggle room there.  I at least have not
encountered an example of a situation wherein a special interest has caused
a regulator to change the rules and thereby issue a permit for a potentially
illegal action.  But it's a big world, if you can give an example, I'll
certainly concede the point!

>
>   3) Regulators can only exercise the discretion they are granted under
law.

That's really part of my point; some regulators, such as the ones I've
described above, have exercised "discretion" that in fact circumvents the
written law, by such techniques as failing to act within a proscribed period
to respond to permit applications, etc.  While I understand that some people
actually support this kind of conduct, it ultimately is hurtful to all.
After all, there is a price to be paid in ignoring the law, and that goes
for the regulators as well as the regulated.  Unfortunate, but true.

I hope you don't misunderstand me; I am strongly in favor of environmental
regulation.  But I do this stuff everyday, and have been doing it on both
sides of the fence for ten years now.  And I can tell you it's a lot like
what happens on the line of scrimmage in American-style football; the
linemen on _both_ sides play hard and sometimes forget the rules.  All I'm
saying is that the rules are there for a reason and should be followed by
BOTH sides; to say that regulators should be given special dispensation to
break them is a disservice to everyone.
***************************************************************************
PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed
here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire
responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author.
Submissions:     PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net
Subscriptions:   PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net
Website:         http://www.paddlewise.net/
***************************************************************************