Recent Legislation Proposal Looking to
Loosen Wetland Protection Laws
By: Evan Roberts
Feb. 13, 2012
Soon after the election and welcoming of the new governor Scott Walker into office, Walker did not waste time in making his presence known. In the midst of disbanding unions and cutting state employee benefits, Walker set forth to lax the current and long standing wetland protection laws. While I believe what Walker is doing overall is not all that bad, I do believe that this is not a positive move on his part. Walker claims that wetlands pose a threat to the creation of jobs. I know, doesn’t make much sense. The intention of the proposed legislation is to streamline the process of obtaining permits to fill wetlands and use the land for another purpose other than a functioning wetland. More specifically this bill will threaten wetlands that are no longer connected to any other water way/source, particularly wetlands near or in urban areas. These waterways include: lakes, rivers, streams or groundwater flow routes. These “isolated” wetlands are the ones in danger. Is this necessary? Can’t they just find somewhere else to build or fulfill their need for land? What this legislation is doing is setting the tone for more wetland legislation changes in the future. If we let this happen, I fear it will domino and encourage or make it seem ok for it to keep happening. Isolated or not wetlands serve a very important purpose in this state and others. They are home to many plants and animals, including endangered ones. Not to mention water storage. Wetlands act as sponges and absorb water that could otherwise cause flooding and the frequency of flooding would increase on top of that. I’d go as far to make the statement that whatever jobs wetlands are preventing, they do not outweigh the ecological benefits that they pose and I hope others would agree.
At first, the proposal was being rushed through the legislative system to avoid any rebuttals but the Wisconsin Wetlands Association stepped in and put roadblocks in the process using their given right to review the legislation and have a chance to change the language in the bill. Thank god for democracy, I sure am glad they did do something. As of now they have managed to influence what is in the bill, but are still struggling with a few issues that the two parties won’t budge on. An update from February 10th, indicated that the bill is once again going before lawmakers but is still missing some language that would work in the favor of wetland preservation supporters like myself. I can actually say I am surprised that there is even a dispute of such an issue like this. For a society moving towards going green and protecting the earth and its resources we sure are being a bit hypocritical with ourselves if this continues. I guess dollars and cents reign supreme. What would be a relatively easy decision for me seems to be a big enough deal to take to capitol hill and fight over it. This is a shame and I wish people could be a bit more consistent and thoughtful as a society, including the governor, businessmen and developers.
References:
Wisconsin Wetlands Association; Website: http://wisconsinwetlands.org/alerts.htm#alert
4 comments:
Well I do have to agree with you that this is wrong; but it is consistent with any republican candidate to change laws on conserving nature. (Bush changing the clean water act etc.) Also humans have historically put their greed over the environment, and that still holds true for today.
I can see that Walker's misguided policies know no boundaries. I agree, these policies are in know way intuitive. While it is true that I have a greater understanding of the importance of wetlands owing to my stint in last spring's NR251 course, wetland importance is a no-brainer in general.
Even "The Magic School Bus" had an episode addressing the delicate balance that any bogs, marshes, or streams help uphold, and what was without any mention of their importance to groundwater.
Why do conservatives continue to envision a world of impenetrable man-made surfaces; our cities being flooded and washed away at the tiniest thunderstorm. I say keep as much natural land as humanly possible. Don't dismiss anything as expendable unless you are a trained professional, or can at least bear to consult with one.
This is a good topic, and I agree with you on most points. If this law was passed, we would see major changes in the urban environment, most of which would be bad. At one point, you say, "Can’t they just find somewhere else to build or fulfill their need for land?" I would like to hear more about where you think they should be building, or an alternative option to this problem.
I like the passion you feel on this; it resonates strongly with me!
Post a Comment