Birders and other environmentalists feared that the appointments of John G. Roberts and Samuel Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court would move the Court to the right on issues concerning clean water, clean air, wetland preservation, and protections for endangered birds and animals, and their worst nightmares have come true, according to the latest Birder's United news update.

In 2006, both Alito and Roberts voted to weaken federal regulations of wetlands. In June 2007 the two new justices were part of the majority in the case National Association of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife, which ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency does not have to consider endangered species before handing over Clean Water Act regulatory authority to states that request it.

The Environmental Protection Agency had given regulatory authority to the state of Arizona to approve building permits under the Clean Water Act. The legislation gives the EPA the authority to hand regulatory oversight to a state if the state meets nine specific criteria. But the protection of endangered species is not one of those nine provisions.

Defenders of Wildlife filed suit claiming that the state should not be granted regulatory authority because the state does not consider the impact of housing development on endangered species, including the pygmy owl. The Ninth Circuit Court agreed with Defenders of Wildlife saying endangered species were not given adequate protections under the EPA guidelines.

But in a 5-4 ruling the Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit Court decision. Writing for the majority Justice Alito noted that the Clean Water Act states that the EPA “must” give states control if they requested it and complied with the nine provisions. This one word “must,” according to the majority opinion, gave the Court no leeway to decide in favor of Defenders of Wildlife.

Also:

Birders Waiting for the Democrats

Several months ago Birders United noted that many of the leading candidates who hope to be the standard-bearer for the Democratic Party in 2008 had been slow to put the environment at the top of their agendas. We noted at the time that most of the major Democratic candidates appeared to be sidestepping the issue. When environmental issues were mentioned in their campaign materials it was usually related to lessening our dependence on foreign oil in order to put the brakes on global warming or to decrease our dealings in the Middle East.

Nothing has changed. Traditional “green” policies of conservation, expanding open space, protecting endangered species, and making sure we have clean air and water are still not at the top of the Democratic candidates’ agendas. A survey of the major Democratic candidates’ Web sites shows that not one lists the environment as one of their top concerns.

The fact that environmental issues are not deemed important by the major Democratic candidates is extremely disappointing, especially after the very serious damage that has been done to bird habitats during the six and a half years of the Bush presidency.