| |
|
Thursday, December 6, 2007
|
|
Urban Watershed Perspectives: "If you listen to some of the statements made by the authors of this bill [H.R. 2421, the Clean Water Restoration Act of 2007], you might be tempted to think that it wouldn't have that big of an impact on how water resources (including our urban watersheds) are regulated in the U.S. However, the language chosen for this bill appears to potentially significantly broaden the scope of federal regulation. At issue are measures in the bill that revise the definition of 'waters of the United States.' The revised definition strikes the term 'navigable' and includes 'all interstate and intrastate waters.' This would appear to open many waters that have not traditionally been subject to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, such as agricultural stock ponds and roadside drainage ditches originally constructed in uplands. If the proposed definition were adopted, there could be significant impacts to all manner of projects. Here's a real-life doomsday scenario... imagine a 20-mile road expansion project, where borrow ditches constructed 60 years ago in uplands, that because of steady road runoff and lack of maintenance, are deemed 'jurisdictional.' The costs to permit and mitigate filling these ditches (which would probably extend down both sides of the roadway for the entire extent of the project area) could be staggering."
"2008 pres"
9:33:03 PM 
|
|
Political Wire: "A new Rasmussen Reports survey of likely primary voters in South Carolina shows Sen. Hillary Clinton with a small lead in the Democratic presidential race with 36% support, followed by Sen. Barack Obama at 34% and John Edwards trails at 13%...Among Republicans, Mike Huckabee continues the surge he's seen in Iowa and now leads with 25%, followed by Mitt Romney at 18%, Fred Thompson at 18%, Rudy Giuliani at 12%, and Sen. John McCain at 9%."
Political Wire: "A new InsiderAdvantage poll of likely voters in South Carolina finds Mike Huckabee leading the Republican presidential race with 23% support, followed by Rudy Giuliani at 17%, Fred Thompson at 17%, Rudy Giuliani at 14%, and Sen. John McCain at 10%."
"2008 pres"
8:40:00 PM
|
|
Dahlia Lithwick (via Slate): "It was the best of Habeas, it was the worst of Habeas."
Coyote Gulch thinks that there is broad agreement around this issue for all sides to find common ground. It really is central to the 2008 presidential election. Thanks to the Wash Park Prophet for the link.
Ms. Lithwick was at Yearly Kos this year.
"2008 pres"
5:57:30 PM
|
|
From The Loveland Daily Reporter-Herald, "The Fort Collins City Council passed 6-0 a resolution expressing the councilors' opposition to uranium mining in the area. One councilor abstained...Jackie Adolph from Coloradoans Against Resource Destruction brought to the council a petition with 5,400 signatures of people concerned about the mining. Half of those signatures came from Fort Collins residents, she said."
More coverage from The Fort Collins Coloradoan. They write:
Powertech officials, who were not invited to present information to council but spoke with other residents during public comment, asked council to table the resolution until they have a chance to discuss the project with council and city staff. "We understand there are community concerns about our proposed operations, but a position on this should not be taken on the fear of the unknown," said James Bonner, vice president of exploration for Powertech. "I think they should look at both sides of the issue before passing a resolution here tonight."
City staff was unable to answer many council questions about the proposed project, including what the size the project would be, how many acres it would encompass, how much uranium would be mined, the strength of the regulatory process involved and who owns the land in question, among others. "I am concerned (that) the lack of a data-driven approach here tonight is bad public policy, shines badly on this council, is not a (standard) we should be setting for this council," [Wade] Troxell said. City Manager Darin Atteberry explained the lack of information to council. "If you want staff to take the time to give you a recommendation that is more scientifically based ... if you want more detail prior to passing this resolution, we will need more time to study that," Atteberry said. "Based on the information that we have, I think it's fair to say staff has strong concerns. Is this atypical for us? Yes, usually we spend more time getting data on these kinds of things. But with the limited information we have, staff has strong concerns."
More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.
"2008 pres"
6:36:21 AM
|
|
The Bureau of Reclamation's draft environmental impact statement on the effects of oil shale development is due on December 21st, according to the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel. From the article:
Insight to the potential effect of commercial oil shale development in northwest Colorado will come Dec. 21 when the Bureau of Land Management releases a draft environmental impact study of its fledgling oil shale and tar sands leasing program, BLM Washington spokeswoman Heather Feeney said Wednesday. The document, called the Oil Shale and Tar Sands Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, is the federal government's view of how extensively commercial oil shale development in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming will affect the region economically and environmentally. It is expected to explain how water supplies, air quality and other aspects of the human environment will be changed by an industry that appears set to alter the landscape of northwest Colorado. The public will have until March 21 to submit comments on the impact statement, which will be available at local BLM offices and online at ostseis.anl.gov...When the final oil shale environmental impact statement will be released is anybody's guess, but it depends on how long it takes for the BLM to process the public comments it receives on the draft, Feeney said.
More Coyote Gulch coverage here.
"2008 pres"
6:18:12 AM
|
|
Paul Hogarth, in an opinion piece for BeyondChron, writes off the chances of the Republican Party to win next year's election. It may be a bit early but he does list some of the problems they face. Here are a few excerpts:
It is readily apparent why the Democrats are favored to win the White House next year, regardless of which candidates get nominated. The American people have so tuned out George W. Bush, and want his Administration to be over, that no Republican candidate wants to be his heir-apparent. I can't think of any historical precedent where a two-term President leaves office so unpopular that the candidates in his own party don't want his support. In 1988, the Republican candidates all ran on the Reagan legacy - and in 2000, Clinton was very popular so that Al Gore could be his anointed successor.
But on the issues, the Republican candidates have learned nothing from the Bush fiasco. They unapologetically support our quagmire in Iraq, engage in sabre-rattling on Iran that would make Dick Cheney blush, and every debate they have is about who can "out-torture" the other. On immigration, the Republicans have a ticking time bomb that will cause them to pay dearly at the polls - as the growing Latino population in Texas, Colorado, Arizona and other states will be voting in droves next year. In the House and Senate races, the Republicans are having a tough time recruiting candidates - and their fundraising has been anemic.
"2008 pres"
6:03:37 AM
|
|
|
© Copyright 2009 John Orr.
Last update: 3/15/09; 1:49:01 PM.
|
|
|
