Re: OT: It's the Sierra Club's fault...
- From: PocoLoco <PocoLoco415@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2005 19:01:25 -0400
On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 22:09:35 GMT, Shortwave Sportfishing <onetwothree@xxxxxxxx>
wrote:
>I didn't know the Sierra Club was subordinate to the Evil Karl Rove
>and a duplicitous minion of President Bush's administration - before
>Bush was elected even!!!
>
>Evil - evil I tell you.
>
>----------------------------
>
>September 08, 2005, 8:24 a.m.
>Greens vs. Levees
>Destructive river-management philosophy.
>
>By John Berlau
>
>With all that has happened in the state, it?s understandable that the
>Louisiana chapter of the Sierra Club may not have updated its website.
>But when its members get around to it, they may want to change the
>wording of one item in particular. The site brags that the group is
>?working to keep the Atchafalaya Basin,? which adjoins the Mississippi
>River not far from New Orleans, ?wet and wild.?
>
>These words may seem especially inappropriate after the breaking of
>the levee that caused the tragic events in New Orleans last week. But
>?wet and wild? has a larger significance in light of those events, and
>so does the group using the phrase. The national Sierra Club was one
>of several environmental groups who sued the Army Corps of Engineers
>to stop a 1996 plan to raise and fortify Mississippi River levees.
>
>The Army Corps was planning to upgrade 303 miles of levees along the
>river in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Arkansas. This was needed, a
>Corps spokesman told the Baton Rouge, La., newspaper The Advocate,
>because ?a failure could wreak catastrophic consequences on Louisiana
>and Mississippi which the states would be decades in overcoming, if
>they overcame them at all.?
>
>But a suit filed by environmental groups at the U.S. District Court in
>New Orleans claimed the Corps had not looked at ?the impact on
>bottomland hardwood wetlands.? The lawsuit stated, ?Bottomland
>hardwood forests must be protected and restored if the Louisiana black
>bear is to survive as a species, and if we are to ensure continued
>support for source population of all birds breeding in the lower
>Mississippi River valley.? In addition to the Sierra Club, other
>parties to the suit were the group American Rivers, the Mississippi
>River Basin Alliance, and the Louisiana, Arkansas and Mississippi
>Wildlife Federations.
>
>The lawsuit was settled in 1997 with the Corps agreeing to hold off on
>some work while doing an additional two-year environmental impact
>study. Whether this delay directly affected the levees that broke in
>New Orleans is difficult to ascertain.
>
>But it is just one illustration of a destructive river-management
>philosophy that took hold in the ?90s, influenced the Clinton
>administration, and had serious policy consequences. Put simply, it?s
>impossible to understand the delays in building levees without being
>aware of the opposition of the environmental groups to dams, levees,
>and anything that interfered with the ?natural? river flow. The group
>American Rivers, which leads coalitions of eco-groups on river policy,
>has for years actually called its campaign, ?Rivers Unplugged.?
>
>Over the past few years, levees came to occupy the same status for
>environmental groups as roads in forests ? an artificial barrier to
>nature. They frequently campaigned against levees being built and
>shored up on the nation?s rivers, including on the Mississippi.
>
>In 2000, American Rivers? Mississippi River Regional Representative
>Jeffrey Stein complained in a congressional hearing that the river?s
>?levees that temporarily protect floodplain farms have reduced the
>frequency, extent and magnitude of high flows, robbing the river of
>its ability ? to sustain itself.? Similarly, the National Audubon
>Society, referring specifically to Louisiana, has this statement
>slamming levees on its website, ?Levees have cut off freshwater flows,
>harming fishing and creating salt water intrusion.? The left-leaning
>Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, in describing a grant it gave to
>Environmental Defense, blasted ?the numerous levees and canals built
>on the lower Mississippi River? because ?such structures disrupt the
>natural flows of the Mississippi River?s sediments.?
>
>Some went beyond opposition to building or repairing levees. At an
>Army Corps of Engineers meeting concerning the Mississippi River in
>2002, Audubon official Dan McGuiness even recommended ?looking at
>opportunities to lower or remove levees [emphasis added]? from the
>river.
>
>The groups argued that the ?natural? way would lead to better river
>management, but it was clear they had other agendas in mind besides
>flood control. They were concerned because levees were allegedly
>threatening their beloved exotic animals and plants. In his testimony,
>American Rivers?s Stein noted that the Mississippi River was home to
>?double-crested cormorant, rare orchids, and many other species,?
>which he implied were put at risk by man-made levees.
>
>So far the environmental movement?s role in the events leading to the
>flooding has been little discussed. One exception is former Rep. Bob
>Livingston (R., La.), who told Fox News on Saturday that
>environmentalists were one of the major reasons levee projects were
>held up.
>
>At this point, there are still questions about the particular levees
>that broke in New Orleans. Care should be taken about drawing direct
>conclusions about the causes until there are more facts. But there are
>some important points that are clear that should put in perspective
>about levee funding and flood control.
>
>Nearly all flood-control projects ? even relatively small ones ? are
>subject to a variety of assessments for effects on wetlands,
>endangered species, and other environmental concerns. These reviews
>can be costly and delay projects by years. In the ?90s, for instance,
>the Clinton administration?s Environmental Protection Agency required
>a comprehensive environmental impact statement just to repair a few
>Colorado River levees that had been destroyed in the floods of 1993.
>
>The Clinton administration would frequently side with
>environmentalists on flood-control projects, even against local
>Democrats. The Army Corps of Engineers under Clinton began
>implementing a planned ?spring rise? of the Missouri River that would
>raise water levels on the Missouri River during part of the year. This
>was supported by eco-groups, who argued that this restored the river?s
>natural flows and protected a bird called the piping plover. But farm
>groups and others said that combined with the ice melting from winter,
>the project could increase the risk of flooding in river communities
>and affect more than 1 million acres of productive farmland. Nearly
>all the Republicans and Democrats in Missouri?s congressional
>delegation opposed the plan, as did Missouri?s late Democratic
>governor, Mel Carnahan. But the Clinton administration refused to
>budge, and this was a major factor in Bush?s carrying of Missouri in
>2000.
>
>The Bush administration?s flood-control efforts were often
>relentlessly opposed by environmental groups, and this opposition was
>frequently echoed by liberal activists and in the press. Bush kept his
>promise, and his appointees at the Corps of Engineers have stopped the
>?spring rise? plan that concerned so many about flooding.
>Environmentalists launched a barrage of criticism and a series of
>lawsuits. This was also the case with Bush?s moves to stop the Clinton
>administration?s plans to breach the dams on the Columbia and Snake
>Rivers in the northwest. Even though the dams greatly help to control
>flooding in the region, American Rivers blasted the administration for
>failing to do enough to save the sockeye salmon native to the region.
>
>Ironically, among those criticizing Bush for his actions to prevent
>flooding of the Missouri River was the ever-present anti-Bush
>environmental activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. He chastised Bush in 2004
>for ?managing the flow of the Missouri River.? If, before Katrina,
>Bush had proceeded full-speed ahead and fortified the levees of the
>Mississippi for a Category 5 hurricane, Kennedy and others of his ilk
>would very likely have criticized Bush for trying to manage the
>natural flow of the Mississippi. And it?s a good bet that many of the
>lefty bloggers now critical of Bush for not reinforcing the levees
>would have cited Bush?s levee fortification as another way he was
>despoiling the natural environment.
>
>http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/berlau200509080824.asp
The truth will out!
Thanks.
--
John H
"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Accurate 1 year prior to the actual event
- Next by Date: Re: Sticking to Comedy
- Previous by thread: Re: Natural gas, heating oil prices up 30%
- Next by thread: [WTB] Simpson Lawrence gipsy
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
