We have said it here before, and the Florida GOP agrees it is true: the entire point about the right wing is to attack federal environmental law.
I didn't stumble upon this discovery in housing policy, or food stamps, or health care. These, and other policy areas, are critical to the well being of America, but to find the single place that is most important to the well being of bank accounts of the super-rich whose wealth depends on government policies,
look to environmental regulations.
The fight on the environment animates the GOP, that paints the battle as states' rights versus federalism. It is about more than that, really: it is about dismantling environmental rules and regulations even and especially at the state level of authority. After all, it was Jeb! Bush who articulated it best in his 2003 inaugural speech in Tallahassee: let's empty the buildings of regulators.
Bush didn't say "environmental" regulators, but there was scarcely a single soul in the audience who didn't understand what he meant (except for the mainstream press, perhaps). He meant that Florida's building boom at the time was taking off and that every element of GOP politics had oriented to deliver benefits to big campaign contributors, whether for water policy that delivered water whenever and wherever it was needed, or, eliminating citizen opposition and activism through laws enacted by prior generations of political leaders in Florida. Do good'ers, he called them.
Don't take my word for it. In a recent editorial, Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi argued the key points of the Florida GOP: the fight to reduce, limit, and eventually collapse federal authority in the states.
The editorial, "Why we're fighting against federal overreach on the environment", puts an instant spin that begs the question: is the federal government overreaching on the environment? The answer is "not even close".
Although the fine points elude most Florida voters -- partly because the media will not focus on the central political issue of our time (when did you last hear WLRN discuss states rights versus federalism on the environment?) -- rest assured that the top donors to GOP candidates and causes are intimately familiar with both the argument and the tools used to politically dismantle federal authority.
I'll put a response together in an OPED in the not-too-distant future. As president of Friends of the Everglades, founded by Marjory Stoneman Douglas in 1969, I've spent years in the trenches of this battle. In the meantime, read both the OPED and my comments in CAPS.
Why we're fighting against federal overreach on the environment
BY PAM BONDIMYFLORIDALEGAL.COM
As a fourth-generation Floridian, I care deeply about protecting our waterways and environment. I believe that Florida has always had the best expertise and resources to determine how to protect our waters, as does each unique state.
FLORIDA HAS BEEN A MISERABLE STEWARD OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES. OUR SPRINGS, BAYS AND RIVERS BEAR THE STAMP OF DECADES OF REGULATORY INATTENTION. THE EVERGLADES IS STILL BEING USED AS A SUMP FOR BIG SUGAR'S POLLUTION. ONE OF GOVERNOR SCOTT'S FIRST EXERCISES IN IDIOCY WAS CUTTING 70 PERCENT OF THE SCIENCE STAFF AT THE SOLE STATE AGENCY WITH THE CAPACITY TO MONITOR EVERGLADES RESTORATION. ENVIRONMENTALISTS HAVE BATTLED THE STATE THROUGH ADMINISTRATIVE COURT ACTIONS FOR NEARLY TWENTY YEARS ON GROWTH MANAGEMENT: THE STATE'S RESPONSE? DISMANTLE STATE AUTHORITY.
Under the current administration, the federal Environmental Protection Agency continually seeks expanded authority to trump state regulation.
BONDI LIKELY DOES NOT HAVE THE ATTENTION SPAN OR INTEREST TO ACTUALLY RESEARCH HERSELF THE WORDS PUT IN HER MOUTH. HOW DOES THE EPA "CONTINUALLY" SEEK TO EXPAND ITS AUTHORITY? IT'S A MYTH. THE EPA HAS BEEN SO BATTERED AND BEATEN IN RECENT DECADES IT IS A PAPER TIGER. A QUESTION FOR MS. BONDI: HOW MANY INSTANCES CAN YOU CITE OF EPA ENFORCEMENT IN FLORIDA AGAINST WETLANDS VIOLATORS?
But Congress - not the EPA - decides the extent of federal regulatory authority.
BONDI, AT LEAST, DOES GET TO THE POINT: BIG GOP CONTRIBUTORS HAVE TARGETED EPA IN CONGRESS. THEIR GOAL IS TO DISMANTLE THE EPA, USING LIES THAT MAKE FOR EASY SOUND BITES.
And under the Clean Water Act, Congress left important authority to the states, expressly determining to "recognize, preserve and protect the primary responsibilities and rights of states to prevent, reduce and eliminate pollution, [and] to plan the development and use . . . of land and water resources."
The EPA has a role to play, but the states do, too.
THIS IS WHERE BONDI OR WHOEVER WROTE THE EDITORIAL SHE PUT HER NAME TO SIMPLY SLIPS BY THE IMPORTANT POINT. WHEN IT COMES TO WATER QUALITY, THE EPA LONG AGO "DELEGATED" RESPONSIBILITY TO FLORIDA. THE REASON FOR THE LAWSUITS BY ENVIRONMENTALISTS AGAINST THE EPA IS BECAUSE THE EPA HAS FAILED UTTERLY TO HOLD FLORIDA ACCOUNTABLE TO ITS RESPONSIBILITIES UNDER FLORIDA LAW. WHAT TAXPAYERS IN FLORIDA DON'T KNOW -- BECAUSE, AGAIN, THE MAINSTREAM PRESS HAS FAILED TO REPORT THE STORY OUT -- IS THAT HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS IN LAWYERS' EXPENSES HAVE BEEN PAID OUT FIGHTING FEDERAL LAW SO THAT POLLUTERS IN FLORIDA CAN CONTINUE TO POLLUTE WITHOUT THE THREAT OF FEDERAL ACTION.
Fighting against federal government overreach has been one of my priorities as attorney general. And federal overreach is precisely what is at issue in American Farm Bureau Federation v. EPA. While the details of that case involve the Chesapeake Bay, the principles at stake are far broader.
THE FLORIDA FARM BUREAU, THE FLORIDA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE; I GROUP THESE TOGETHER UNDER THE RUBRIC, "THE GREAT DESTROYERS". THE FARM BUREAU IS JUST THE PRECURSOR ORGANIZATION TO THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HOME BUILDERS. WHAT THEY WANT EVEN MORE THAN FREEDOM FROM POLLUTION RULES IS TO BE FREE FROM ANY RESTRICTIONS ON THE USE OF PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR ITS "WISEST" USE: THAT WOULD BE, IN THEIR VOCABULARY, PRODUCTION HOUSING.
Indeed, the federal court deciding the case explained that the "dispute, at its core, raises questions regarding the proper division of duties between the states and the federal government" under the Clean Water Act.
Because of that critical issue, a coalition of 21 state attorneys general joined a friend-of-the-court brief led by Kansas defending individual states' authority in environmental regulation. Contrary to what has been reported, by signing on to the friend-of-the-court brief, no taxpayer money was spent.
The 21 states are not alone in objecting to this federal overreach. Eight counties in three affected states (Pennsylvania, Delaware and West Virginia) also filed a friend-of-the-court brief. According to those counties, which are suffering as a result of the EPA's unauthorized actions, the "EPA usurped the state and local function" and simply "went too far."
