EPA drops plans to reverse wetlands protection

The Bush administration yesterday reversed plans for a Clean Water Act rollback that would have left nearly half of Washington's streams and wetlands unprotected from pollution and development.

The decision angered development interests and pleased conservationists.

Nearly a year after first signaling that it would pursue the reduction in protections that could affect more than 90 percent of some Western states' waterways, the Environmental Protection Agency announced it was killing the idea.

The initiative had come under fire in more than 130,000 public comments, including a recent letter from nearly half the members of Congress. Many state environmental regulators -- including Washington's Department of Ecology -- also objected, as did hunting and fishing groups.

"The administration heard overwhelming comments about how important wetlands protection is," said John Iani, regional administrator of EPA's Seattle-based Region 10. "It's one of those where the Bush administration is willing to stand up and say, 'Yeah, I'm for protecting wetlands, and here's why.' "

Wetlands store water, filter out pollutants, help prevent flooding and provide resting and hunting grounds for a variety of birds and other animals.

The large proportion of Western streams and wetlands potentially affected was a factor of the proposed rule's abandoning of Clean Water Act protections for streams that do not run all year, "intermittent" waterways. They are common in the West; many are found high in the mountains.

EPA Administrator Mike Leavitt said the administration wants to avoid "a contentious and lengthy rule-making debate" over disputed environmental benefits.

"Up until today, everything the Bush administration was doing was to serve up a rule that would vaporize protection of a third of the wetlands," said Bill Arthur, the Sierra Club's Seattle-based deputy national field director. "The pump had been primed and our full expectation was this was going to be one of those ugly Christmas presents that wouldn't get a lot of attention because of the time of year."

But Arthur said the rollback was controversial enough that it was likely to "create a very public and messy situation for them in 2004" just before the presidential election.

The National Association of Home Builders argued that the proposed rule would "ensure consistency and predictability" in issues surrounding development by wetlands. The group said in a statement issued late yesterday, "This is bad for business and bad for wetlands.

"NAHB is dismayed to see the agencies shirking their rule-making responsibility and relegating environmental decision-making to the courts," the association said.

The proposed rule had its roots in a 2001 Supreme Court decision about proposed landfill near Chicago. The EPA and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers had previously protected wetlands such as those that would be developed there in part based on the fact that they were used by migratory waterfowl.

That policy was in keeping with the "no net loss of wetlands" policy advanced by the first Bush administration.

But the Supreme Court ruled that the agencies had improperly regulated so-called "isolated" wetlands like those at the Chicago landfill site.

The government had maintained that, because hunters and bird-watchers and others are attracted to these wetlands, and might cross state lines to get there and spend money in the process, they were part of interstate commerce and therefore could be regulated by the federal government.

Not so, said the Supreme Court. The decision sparked the rulemaking that the Bush administration dropped yesterday.

This report includes information from The Associated Press. P-I reporter Robert McClure can be reached at 206-448-8092 or robertmcclure@seattlepi.com

Add P-I Local headlines to