President Bush's Toilet Bowl Treaty(LOST coming up for senate vote on Wednesday)

When State Department Legal Adviser John B. Bellinger III gave a controversial June 6 speech on the subject of "The United States and International Law," he mentioned that the Bush Administration had "put forward a priority list of over 35 treaty packages that we have urged the Senate to approve soon, including the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea."

The latter is now up for Senate ratification, with a vote scheduled on Wednesday, and one of its many controversial provisions is the regulation of land-based sources of pollution. This treaty covers the water and the land. But now we have discovered that the Bush Administration has asked the Senate to ratify a treaty that defines one of those land-based sources of pollution as toilet flushing. No kidding.

It is amazing but true. The Bush Administration wants the Senate to ratify a treaty that will invite international inspections of what you flush down your toilet.

We are talking about Annex III of the “Protocol Concerning Pollution from Land-Based Sources and Activities to the Convention for the Protection and Development of the Marine Environment of the Wider Caribbean Region, with Annexes.” You can read it for yourself here.

Annex III is titled, “Domestic Wastewater,” which is defined as including “all discharges from households, commercial facilities, hotels, septage and any other entity…” These discharges are defined as encompassing (1) toilet flushing, (2) discharges from showers, wash basins, kitchens and laundries, or discharges from small industries, provided their composition and quantity are compatible with treatment in a domestic wastewater system.

Lawrence A. Kogan of the Institute for Trade, Standards, and Sustainable Development uncovered the dangerous details of this agreement and has termed it the “Toilet bowl treaty,” noting that it constitutes a sort of mini-Law of the Sea Treaty. The protocol, he says, is one of 11 “regional seas” agreements. It is on an October 1 State Department list of “Treaties Pending in the Senate.” (Not all of these treaties are currently being pushed by the Bush Administration).

Our major media were, as usual, asleep at the switch. It turns out that the White House issued a press release about submitting this treaty to the Senate for ratification. President Bush's statement was quite specific. He noted that “It is estimated that 70 to 90 percent of pollution entering the marine environment emanates from land-based sources and activities,” and that parties to the treaty “are required to ensure that domestic wastewater discharges meet specific effluent limitations, and to develop plans for the prevention and reduction of agricultural nonpoint source pollution.”

Bush claimed that “The United States would be able to implement its obligations under the Protocol under existing statutory and regulatory authority.” In other words, he thinks this is supposed to affect others, not us. But this may not be the way some activist judges and international lawyers see it.

Bush's admission that 70 to 90 percent of pollution entering the marine environment emanates from land-based sources and activities is directly relevant to the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which has provisions relating to prohibiting pollution from such sources. That is why many observers have concluded that the Law of the Sea Treaty can serve as a back-door way to implement the (unratified) global warming treaty. Foreign judges and lawyers could easily interpret greenhouse gas emissions as contributing to pollution of the oceans. As a result, under UNCLOS they could order cuts in energy use.

Since the State Department submitted the protocol for ratification, along with the Law of the Sea Treaty, it's a certainty that Legal Adviser John B. Bellinger III knew all about the potential for regulating land-based pollution sources and activities, including toilet bowls, when he testified before the Senate about UNCLOS on September 27. But not only did he deny that UNCLOS had any such potential, he said it had no such provisions. When pressed, he claimed the provisions were “hortatory” and had no practical legal impact. This is why Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch and I have asked for a formal review (PDF) of his testimony. He clearly misled the Senate.

But now we find out that it's worse than we thought. The State Department had previously submitted another treaty that specifically and explicitly defined a land-based source of pollution as being a toilet bowl. Ratification of this treaty, in conjunction with ratification of UNCLOS, would literally invite U.N. inspectors to review and manage discharge from your toilet bowl. Why didn't Bellinger tell the Senate about that during his UNCLOS testimony?

Bellinger seems to be far more open and honest with international audiences that he is trying to appease and impress. In his June 6 speech to a group at The Hague, for example, Bellinger boasted about using his own staff of 171 lawyers to “integrate” international law “into the decision-making process” of the U.S. Government. He defended the President's order to Texas to comply with a ruling by the U.N.'s International Court of Justice on giving convicted Mexican killers another hearing. Bellinger called this compliance with “an international obligation.”

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee is scheduled to vote on UNCLOS on Wednesday. UNCLOS is the first order of business and if it passes, as seems likely, Majority Leader Senator Harry Reid could call it up for a quick Senate floor vote.

Before the committee votes, it should recall Bellinger as a witness and determine why he has been less than open and honest about the “obligations” of the U.S. under UNCLOS. Then he should be asked to explain why we need a treaty targeting toilet bowls and showers. If he claims the need to adhere to “international obligations,” he should be laughed out of the hearing room, along with his treaties.

FOREIGN RELATIONS TO VOTE ON LOST! Tell Your Senator to vote NO on the Law of the Sea Treaty!!

This Wednesday, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee will vote on the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST). The committee is made up of 11 Democrats and 10 Republicans. If passed, the next step would be ratification vote on the floor of the Senate, which requires a two-thirds majority of Senators present (67 votes if all Senators are present).

Senators need to hear from you immediately! The tide is beginning to turn our way, but more calls are needed. Just this past week, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) announced his opposition to LOST: “I will oppose ratification of the Law of the Sea Convention due to my refusal to subjugate the rights and interests of the United States to the jurisdiction of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea or a group of international arbitrators. Accordingly, I do not believe U.S. interests are best served through ratification of UNCLOS.” Similarly, we’ve heard several Republican presidential candidates express their concerns or outright opposition to the LOST.

Eagle Forum has pointed out how a treaty like LOST will serve as a conduit for foreign law. In the case of Jose Medellin, a convicted rapist-murderer Mexican national living illegally in the U.S., Mexico sued the U.S. in the International Court of Justice on behalf of Medellin claiming his rights under the Vienna Convention were violated. Now the U.S. Supreme Court is deciding whether to abide by the International ruling, rather than the Texas Supreme Court decision.

LOST would be a form of world government with power to decide all matters relating to the two-thirds of the earth's surface covered by the oceans. All disputes arising from man's use of the sea would be heard and decided by the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, a 21-member international court that sits in Hamburg, Germany. There is no appeal from that court, which has the power to disregard or override U.S. laws and even the U.S. Constitution.

President Ronald Reagan opposed the treaty because it would erode U.S. sovereignty. Read more about that here: Another U.N. Power Grab by William P. Clark and Edwin Meese.

Take Action

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee could vote on LOST at any time! Tell your Senators to reject this give-away of our sovereignty and to vote NO on ratification!

Members of the Foreign Relations Committee: Biden, Boxer, Cardin, Casey, Coleman*, Corker*, DeMint, Dodd, Feingold, Hagel, Isakson*, Kerry, Lugar, Menendez, Murkowski, Nelson (FL), Obama, Sununu* , Vitter, Voinovich, Webb

* Designates top tier target Senators. Please call these Senators first!

http://www.eagleforum.org/alert/2007/10-29-07.html

>>>land-based sources of pollution as toilet flushing

This is called TMDL - Total Maximum Daily Load (Poop levels)

http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/regs/sec404.html
The EPA can go after anyone that doesn’t have a permit to poop.

EPA - TMDL and BMP - USDA Joint Statement

Joint Statement of the Department of Agriculture and the Environmental Protection Agency Addressing Agricultural and Silvicultural Issues Within EPA Revisions to TMDL and NPDES Rules

May 1, 2000

ABSTRACT: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has proposed revisions to existing regulations for administering the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) provisions of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The Department of Agriculture (USDA) identified a range of issues with respect to the proposed TMDL rule. EPA and USDA convened a process to review and discuss these issues with the goal of resolving the issues prior to final issuance of the regulations. This paper, which has been prepared jointly by EPA and USDA, describes the agreement between the two agencies concerning development of final TMDL regulations.

Introduction Under the TMDL program, States provide a comprehensive listing of all the Nation’s polluted waters. The States then develop “pollution budgets,” or TMDLs, for waters impaired by nonpoint and point sources of pollution. Pollution reductions called for by a TMDL budget are designed to meet certain safe levels of pollutants that allow beneficial uses, such as swimming or fishing, established in water quality standards adopted by States.

Congress established the TMDL program in the CWA of 1972. EPA’s early work to implement the Act focused on establishing effluent limitations through National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits for point sources like factories and wastewater treatment plants. Lawsuits filed against the EPA in the late 1980’s and 1990’s, however, have compelled the development of TMDLs on specific schedules and for all impaired waters, including waters impaired by nonpoint sources of pollution (e.g. agriculture and forestry).

To improve implementation of the TMDL program, EPA convened a Federal Advisory Committee and proposed amendments to existing TMDL and NPDES regulations in the Federal Register on August 23, 1999.

EPA/USDA Areas of Agreement

In response to concerns with the proposed TMDL rules at USDA, Under Secretary Jim Lyons of USDA and EPA Assistant Administrator Chuck Fox decided to form an interagency workgroup to review key issues. Working through the winter, this group reached agreement on the issues of interest to USDA and EPA has agreed to reflect these agreements in its final TMDL rule.

1) State and Local Governments Should Have the Lead

The EPA and USDA agree that State governments and local citizens should take the lead in developing pollution budgets for impaired waterways. To enhance flexibility in State programs, the following revisions are expected to be included in the final TMDL rule:

(1) eliminate the requirement that States give top priority to development of TMDLs for certain types of impaired waters;

(2) eliminate the requirement that States identify “threatened” waters;

(3) lengthen the time period for States to develop periodic
lists of impaired waters from two years to four years;

(4) grant States up to 15 years to develop TMDLs for their
impaired waters;

(5) do not impose a deadline for attainment of water quality
goals; and

(6) drop the proposal to require new discharges to polluted
waters to obtain “offsets” for new pollution.

2) Reducing Agricultural Impacts on Water Quality

Two general forms of agricultural runoff, “return flows from irrigated agriculture” and “agricultural stormwater discharges,” are statutorily exempt from NPDES permit requirements and treatment as point sources.

However, USDA and the agricultural community had concerns that the EPA proposal moved away from traditional notions of what is a nonpoint source of pollution and strategies for reducing impacts through voluntary efforts and Best Management Practices (BMPs). EPA and USDA agree that voluntary and incentive-based approaches are the best way to address nonpoint source pollution. Water quality improvements that farmers make through Federal conservation programs, or on their own initiative, will be given due credit in the development of TMDLs. If a farmer will invest in voluntary conservation practices to improve water quality the “pollution budget” will recognize those investments in developing a strategy for future cleanup. Under the EPA proposal, States have the flexibility to allocate pollution load reductions between nonpoint and point sources as they consider appropriate and are not required to allocate pollution reductions to specific categories (e.g. agriculture) in proportion to pollution contributions.

3) Controlling Water Quality Impacts of Forestry Operations

USDA raised concerns with EPA’s proposal to allow States, and in some cases EPA, to issue a Clean Water Act permit where needed to correct a water pollution problem caused by discharge of stormwater from forestry operations.

USDA and EPA have developed a modified approach that grants States flexibility in designing their TMDL program. Under this approach, no NPDES permits will be required for point sources of polluted stormwater from forestry operations for five years from publication of the final rule. During that time, EPA will work with the USDA and the public to develop guidance for States to follow in designing and adopting forestry BMP programs for the protection of water quality.

In States that develop and maintain forestry BMP programs that are recognized by EPA as adequate (i.e. generally consistent with this guidance) forest operations will have no exposure to NPDES permit requirements. States will be encouraged to grant forest operators that are implementing BMPs in good faith an exemption from any directly enforceable State water quality standards. Since existing Federal law requires forest operations on National Forest System lands to be conducted consistent with water quality requirements, operations conducted on these lands will be exempt from NPDES authority.

The idea is that forest operators in States with approved programs will know what is expected of them, what BMPs are effective in reducing pollution and need to be implemented. If for some reason the implementation of the core set of BMPs results in a pollution problem then the State must commit to refining or better tailoring the BMPs as necessary to attain water quality goals.

Only if a State does not have an approved forestry BMP program after five years, will the State or EPA have the discretion to issue NPDES permits in limited cases where the operation results in a discharge that causes water pollution problems. Any NPDES permits that are issued by EPA will call for implementation of BMPs, as opposed to attainment of numerical effluent limitations; EPA expects that State NPDES permit authorities will follow this approach. States will not be required to issue NPDES permits to forest operations discharging polluted stormwater; it will be a matter of their discretion.

Dischargers that are not required to get a permit will not be subject to citizen or government enforcement action under the Clean Water Act.

4) TMDL Program Funding

States have identified a need for increased funding to support more complete assessment of the condition of waters and development of TMDLs for polluted waters. Adequate funding of the TMDL program is key to its implementation. The EPA is currently developing estimates of the overall cost of the TMDL program and the analysis will be available when the final rule is published. The President’s FY 2001 budget increases funding for state administration of the TMDL program by $45 million. The budget also increases funding for State programs to reduce polluted runoff by $50 million. USDA agricultural conservation programs are dramatically enhanced by the FY 2001 budget.

The Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) would be increased from $200 million to $325 million. Continuous sign up provisions of the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) would be funded with $125 million in both FY 2001 and FY 2002. Finally, under the President’s budget the acreage included in the Wetland Reserve Program (WRP) is increased by over 200,000 acres in the next several years. This kind of Federal budget response is necessary to provide State and local partners the tools to successfully build their TMDL programs.

Conclusion

The final TMDL regulations will provide an improved framework for restoring our polluted waters. Much work remains to be done to meet clean water goals. The EPA and USDA will continue to work with State and private partners in improving the communication and outreach essential for successfully implementing the TMDL program.

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.