Action Needed Today!

From our friends at Trout Unlimited:

"Emergency action needed today! Call the Senate Appropriations Committee and tell them to leave the Clean Water Act alone!"

Go to their WOTUS Emergency Page and give a Senator a call.

Dead Water

Dead river running.

There's a stream by the house that is one of three local gems that provides good angling year-round. It's a protected wild trout stream that used to have lots of brook trout in it. Over the past decade, they've been displaced by lots of browns. I suppose there are worse things. On a Monday afternoon last July all the fish for hundreds of yards downstream of a storm drain outlet just up and died. No one knows why.

The state came down and confirmed that there were no fish in the water. Upstream of the outlet they found many trout up to fourteen inches in length. Water sample testing failed to determine what exactly went into the water. The likely culprits are some pesticide or herbicide used to maintain town and state property served by that storm drain system though I wouldn't rule out some private individual pouring something into a catch basin.

These sorts of events get precious little publicity. It's a small stream. Resources are dear and greater priorities loom. And it's only trout for god's sake. Who really gives a shit about trout? Folks move on quickly.

Clean water is taken for granted. We turn the faucet and expect that what comes out will be healthy for us to consume. I don't think too many people make a connection between what they're seeing come from the faucet and it's source. To trace water back to it's ultimate source, all you have to do is stand outside on a rainy day. In order for that water to make it's way to the faucet it will go on an amazing journey, a journey that may include a storm drain, a small creek or even that marsh down the street that a developer wants to fill in for housing.

Thirteen tanks, forty feet from the water.
Required inspections to make sure
sufficient controls are in place: Zero
Actual sufficient controls in place: Zero
People with poisoned water:  300,000
Now that's Freedom!

Eighty-six percent of people in the U.S. get their water from public water supplies. About a third of that supply comes from groundwater via public wells. The other two thirds is from surface water - rivers and impoundments on rivers.* And those rivers get their water from smaller rivers and smaller streams and so on until it's just water falling from the sky. And some of that water washes by facilities like those owned by Freedom Industries.

With the debate about fracking, there's been a whole lot of focus on the quality of water in wells lately but those impacts are generally localized and invisible on a national level. To some I suppose the fracking hubbub sounds like a bunch of shrill, whining brats. Some would say that America's freedom is at stake and if energy independence comes at the price of some bad water and dead streams, so be it. It worked for the mining industry, why not the drilling industry?

But those shrill voices seem to resonate a whole lot more when events are not localized and dozens of inconvenienced people becomes thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands. Clean water becomes a whole lot more important because it is a whole lot more important.

It's very popular in certain political circles to say that the EPA isn't needed, that smaller government is the answer for everything. I agree that we're spending more than we take in and I'd like my tax situation to be different. But there are places that I'm not willing to compromise; Clean Water is one of those places.

Events like the one in Charleston, West Virginia are not accidents. They are the logical conclusion of a series of events put in place by us. We elect folks to office and demand that they do certain things, like create a climate where doing business is easy. Further, we demand that we not be constrained by onerous regulations. We demand freedom and liberty and all the other things that make for amusing Facebook memes and witty political repartee. And we get exactly what we ask for. We deserve better.

We need to continue to strengthen the regulation and enforcement of laws that pertain to clean water on the local, state and federal levels. And we each need to take personal responsibility for doing so. It is easy to blame such conditions on politicians and political bodies. But at the end of the day it is the personal responsibility of each of us to make our voices heard in the discussion.

If you haven't written your local, state and federal political leaders on this topic, you should. And you shouldn't let them get away with savaging agencies like the EPA to score political points. It's the EPA which is solely charged with keeping water clean. If you kill the EPA, you turn the responsibility for clean water over to companies like Freedom Industries. And then it'll be no mystery who's poisoning the water and killing the fish. It'll be the person in the mirror.


Notes:
* Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 2005; By Joan F. Kenny, Nancy L. Barber, Susan S. Hutson, Kristin S. Linsey, John K. Lovelace, and Molly A. Maupin

I never bought a man who wasn't for sale

A handsome chap, no?

Reality TV is educational.

I was watching Pawn Stars (That's "pawn", Jonny, not "porn") recently and a gentleman brought in an ink well in the shape of a gavel. This ink well reportedly belonged to a William A. Clark. Clark it turns out was a wealthy guy at the turn of the last century who liked to buy politicians to further his business objectives. He bought influence from Las Vegas to Butte.

Clark is probably most notorious for his purchase of one of Montana's U.S. Senate seats in 1899 through outright bribery of several state legislators (who at that time were responsible for selecting Senators). Once this was revealed Congress refused to seat him though he was subsequently elected by popular vote once the Seventeenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was passed.

Mark Twain thought highly of the man:

"He is as rotten a human being as can be found anywhere under the flag; he is a shame to the American nation, and no one has helped to send him to the Senate who did not know that his proper place was the penitentiary, with a ball and chain on his legs. To my mind he is the most disgusting creature that the republic has produced since Tweed's time."

Perhaps Clark's greatest gift to us all was the dawning realization that money and politics don't mix very well. So, limitations were eventually put on political financial contributions by both individuals and organizations. No where were these lessons better learned than in Montana; they have had some of the most stringent campaign finance laws in the Union.

The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled in the Citizen's United v FEC case that corporations were entitled to the same free speech protections that individuals enjoy. The rationale goes something like this: Corporations are assemblies of people, people shouldn't have their free speech rights abridged, therefore neither should assemblies of such people in the form of business corporations even if those corporations were formed for the sole purpose of influencing elections.

But why do companies need a voice? If they're assemblies of people, surely the voice of the people is sufficient. But apparently not.

Citizens United changed what corporations were allowed to have a voice on. Previously, they could produce issues advertisements but not directly put their resources behind a specific candidate. Now corporations can directly advocate for specific candidates.

So, instead of putting an ad out that says something like "Unregulated mining creates good jobs for Americans", organizations like Citizens for Patriotic Blue-Blooded Mineral Extraction or, say, The Pebble Limited Partnership can now put out an ad that says "Bob Smith is bad for America cause he supports mining regulation. Vote for Sally Johnson."

Citizens United erased the line between people and non-people in the most fundamental human area of our democracy -- the vote.

And that brings us back to Montana and Billy Clark's legacy.

Due to Montana's history of political corruption they have had strict campaign finance laws including one prohibiting companies from contributing to political campaigns. But the U.S. Supreme Court ruled (summarily, by the way, without any oral arguments or facts presented) in American Tradition Partnership v Montana that the Citizens United case trumps the state law and therefore the American Tradition Partnership can support or oppose any Montana candidate it wishes.

The majority opinion from Citizens United stated:

"independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption," and therefore "[n]o sufficient governmental interest justifies limits on the political speech of nonprofit or for-profit corporations."

Unlimited, "independent" money spent on political campaigns neither corrupts nor has the appearance of corruption. Phew, what a relief.

Justice Stevens argued in the dissenting opinion that:

"These legal entities, he argued, have perpetual life, the ability to amass large sums of money, limited liability, no ability to vote, no morality, no purpose outside of profit-making, and no loyalty. Therefore, he argued, the courts should permit legislatures to regulate corporate participation in the political process."

Doesn't seem unreasonable. Corporations are different from people in some easily definable ways.

But the decision was the opposite. Corporations have the sames rights as people from the perspective of supporting political aspirants.

So what the hell does this have to do with conservation or fly fishing? It's not yet clear. I do know a few corporations that aren't very fond of regulation and regulation is the life blood of conservation; maybe they'll want their voice heard.

In this election cycle eyes will be on the results of Sheldon and Miriam Adelson's donations. They've already put $20 million on Republican Presidential candidates and will put another $51M into other conservative organizations.

If Governor Romney wins and implements new pro-Israel or anti-union programs, key Adelson issues, then we'll have an important data point on the influence of independent money on politician's behavior. If Governor Romney wins and ignores the desires of wealthy donors, then the court's majority opinion will be affirmed (same for if he loses).

I just can't imagine any politician ignoring the desires of a large donor regardless of whether that money is given directly to their campaign or is independent as in the case of the Adelsons. I also worry about how this plays out on the local and state levels where money for candidates is a lot more scarce and far more welcome.

I'm looking forward to seeing how this plays out. Hopefully it won't be too painful.