Posted on 07/19/2004 12:08:48 PM PDT by areafiftyone
To: National Desk and Environment Reporter
Contact: John Millett of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 202-564-7842 or millett.john@epa.gov
DES MOINES, Iowa., July 19 /U.S. Newswire/ -- EPA Administrator Mike Leavitt announced 14 watersheds -- representing 17 states - eligible for $15 million from EPA's Targeted Watersheds Grant Program. The selected areas represent more than 20,000 square miles of rivers, lakes and streams across the United States.
"Through this program, EPA lends a hand to local groups working to protect and restore our nation's watersheds," said Leavitt from the banks of Gray's Lake, part of the Upper Mississippi watershed. "With these watershed projects, we take a critical step forward in providing clean and safe water for every American."
Watersheds qualifying for the program stretch from Cape Fear on The Atlantic Coast, through much of the Mississippi River Basin, all the way to Dungeness River in Washington State and the Kenai River in Alaska. Watershed health is strategically important to providing clean, safe water where Americans live, work and play. Since 2003, more than $30 million has been provided through the Targeted Watersheds Grant Program.
The Targeted Watersheds Grant Program was proposed in 2002 by the Bush Administration to encourage successful community-based approaches to protect and restore the nation's watersheds. This competitive grant program provides needed resources to those watershed organizations whose restoration plans set clear goals and objectives with special consideration given to water quality monitoring, innovation, a public education component and strong community support.
Special consideration was given to watersheds along the Mississippi River Basin, where market-based water quality trading pilot projects are being implemented to address excessive nutrient run-off along the River. This nutrient overload has been scientifically linked to the seasonal hypoxic -- or oxygen starved -- zone in the Gulf of Mexico. Effectively protecting and restoring local watersheds has a direct impact on the health of our oceans and coastal areas.
The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy highlighted this connection in its preliminary report, stating "the nation's coastal and ocean resources are affected not only by the activities in coastal areas, but also by those in upland watersheds." The Commission endorsed programs like the Targeted Watersheds Grant Program to provide technical and financial assistance to states and communities for watershed initiatives that will ultimately protect our oceans and coasts.
The watersheds eligible to apply for the grant money made Available today are:
Nashua River, Massachusetts and New Hampshire; Ipswich River, Massachusetts; Passaic River, New Jersey; Schuylkill River, Pennsylvania; Cape Fear, North Carolina; Sangamon River, Illinois; Kalamazoo River, Michigan; Fourche Creek, Arkansas; Upper Mississippi River, Iowa; Bear River, Utah, Idaho and Wyoming; Lake Tahoe, California and Nevada; Siuslaw River, Oregon; Dungeness River, Washington; Kenai River, Alaska
Detailed information about these projects and the Targeted Watersheds Grant Program is available at: http://www.epa.gov/owow/watershed/initiative/ For more on The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, please visit: http://www.oceancommission.gov/documents/prelimreport/welcome.html
$15 Million??????
That's a "drop in the bucket"!
15 Billion for aids in Africa and 15 Million for watersheds in America we need some new priorities. 15 Million is a drop in the bucket.
Conservation is where it's at.
Its pork, but its not a pork chop. More like pork rinds. If this was the biggest waste of cash to worry about we'd have a $400 Billion surplus...
FMCDH(BITS)
Needs repeating over and over and over and over.....................
FMCDH(BITS)
Watershed, I want to restore my toolshed.
What's really needed is woodsheds for RINOS.
This watershed business will ultimately restrict property rights. Many small woodlot owners are cutting trees before the government restricts what we can do - for the greater good.
This is already in the works because the wording about persuading property owners to do "the right thing," has restrictions on use and punishments (fines).
Anybody along a river had better watch out!
YOu certainly have foresight. It usually starts as voluntary, then maybe tax break, then to get a subsidy, then regulation.
The kicker here is responsibility. Will one land owner next to a river make a difference. Sure, but un-measureable. Would all of them. You bet. Appropriate restoration of wetlands could help clean up rivers and lakes more than any regs on industry. But property rights must be respected.
The problem isn't what, it's how. I pay to have a water treatment plant treat my waste. A land owner next to a river shouldn't be expected to give up his wealth to treat anything more than his own waste, and what hits the river at his property line is more than likely much more than his own waste. It is everything "upstream."
If landowners are going to be forced to commit their property to waste treatment - they should be paid.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.