The Obama Administration’s decision to not list the greater sage-grouse as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) is a prudent one. It not only reflects the most recent sage grouse population trends, but also encourages ongoing cooperative conservation efforts that are showing clear signs of success. CRS president David Jenkins said, “The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service’s decision not to list the greater sage-grouse is a credit to cooperative conservation efforts of the Bush and Obama Administrations, state wildlife agencies and everyone who has answered the call to conserve sage-grouse habitat.” He added, “This decision is a clear measure of success for a truly conservative approach to conservation, but success will be fleeting without continued diligence and an enduring commitment to effective stewardship.” Securing a long-term and sustainable sage-grouse recovery will require that federal and state land use plans be firm in their protection of sage-grouse habitat, and that appeals to water down these plans by short-sighted special interests be rejected. CRS also encourages future administrations to recognize the importance of utilizing the ESA sooner rather than later should the sage-grouse population resume its decline...
The climate resolution introduced today by Congressman Chris Gibson (R-NY) and ten Republican cosponsors presents a tremendous opportunity for all House Republicans to demonstrate their support for prudent, fact-based stewardship of, as President Reagan put it, “this magical planet that God gave us.” CRS president David Jenkins said: “By introducing this common sense resolution, Congressman Gibson and his fellow Republican cosponsors have demonstrated the prudence, responsibility and vision that are hallmarks of true conservatism. Just as President Reagan did when addressing ozone depletion, they have risen above politics to acknowledge a serious threat to our planet—and by doing so, they have increased the likelihood that conservative ideas will finally be brought to bear on a problem that has for far too long been ceded to liberals.” CRS commends Representatives Gibson, Carlos Curbelo, Ros-Lehtinen, Meehan, Costello, Fitzpatrick, Hanna, Stefanik, Dold, Reichert and LoBiondo for showing true leadership and helping to foster constructive conservative engagement on one of the biggest environmental challenges we face. We urge all House Republicans to cosponsor this common sense resolution and commit to being good stewards of our life-sustaining atmosphere. Reagan put it best when he said, “This is our patrimony. This is what we leave to our children. And our great moral responsibility is to leave it to them either as we found it or better than we found it.” Here is a link to the text of the resolution: Gibson Climate Resolution...
Conservatives for Responsible Stewardship (CRS) has been working to educate the public–especially fellow conservatives–about the EPA’s new Clean Water Rule. Check out our recent op-ed in the Knoxville News-Sentinel: Proposed Clean Water Rule Follows Baker’s Vision of Stewardship. CRS has also been carrying our message to the airwaves with interviews on drive-time radio in Colorado, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Texas. Here are three clips from CRS President David Jenkins’ recent interview on WECO in Wartburg, Tennessee. WECO Clip 1, WECO Clip 2, WECO Clip 3 Background Back in May the Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers released a rulemaking to clarify which of our nation’s waters are covered under the Clean Water Act (CWA). This was made necessary by a split U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 2006 that muddied aspects of the old interpretation. The Court was split three ways and Justice Kennedy’s middle opinion–which said that for non-navigable water to be covered under the law they must affect the chemical, physical, or biological integrity of navigable waters–became the prevailing guidance for EPA and the Corps in crafting the new Clean Water Rule. As a result, this new rule is more narrow and includes fewer waters than EPA’s guidance did prior to 2006. Still, some special interests, such as American Farm Bureau and land developers, are vigorously opposing the new rule in hopes of further narrowing the scope of the CWA to exclude smaller streams and many of our remaining wetlands. They are misrepresenting the Clean Water Rule as an unprecedented expansion of the CWA and ridiculously claiming it even...
“…man is not the lord of creation, with an omnipotent will, but a part of creation, with limitations, who ought to observe a decent humility in the face of the inscrutable.” Richard Weaver Pope Francis’ recently released Encyclical on the environment (Ladauto Si’) drew dismissive comments from two Catholic GOP presidential candidates. Just before the Encyclical was released, Rick Santorum commented “...we probably are better off leaving science to the scientists and focusing on what we’re really good at, which is … theology and morality.” After its release, Jeb Bush quipped “I don’t get economic policy from my bishops or my cardinals or my pope.” Bush also added that religion “ought to be about making us better as people, less about things [that] end up getting into the political realm.” These comments are striking in just how selective and limiting they portray the role of faith. As Christians, it can be assumed that both Santorum and Bush believe that God created the earth and charged man with its stewardship. If so, it is hard to understand how they can dismiss care of the environment–whether the issue is mercury pollution that harms the unborn, climate change, or wildlife protection–as being completely outside the realm of faith and morality. Such an attitude is impious. Just last week a very conservative study published in the Journal of Science Advances found that because of human actions the earth is experiencing a mass extinction of wildlife species. Extinction rates over the past century are up to 100 times higher than natural average background rates. The report notes that “loss of biodiversity is one of the most critical current environmental problems,...
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army have issued a rulemaking that finally clarifies the scope of the Clean Water Act in the wake of a split 2006 Supreme Court decision (Rapanos v. United States) that muddied the law’s interpretation. and has made protecting our nation’s vital waters and wetlands more difficult. The new rule offers a prudent, balanced and science-based interpretation that preserves the integrity of the Clean Water Act—which was passed in 1972 by a wide bi-partisan majority of Congress to protect the health of our nation’s water resources. “Clean water is a priority for every American, and this rule merits the same bi-partisan support that the Act itself received. This rule also deserves support—especially from conservatives—because it better protects wetlands, which is fiscally responsible and protective of downstream property rights,” said David Jenkins, President of Conservatives for Responsible Stewardship (CRS). Wetlands, because of their unique ability to trap, store, filter and slowly release storm water, perform a number of essential functions. They reduce the frequency and severity of flooding, help maintain water quality, replenish underground aquifers, and protect against drought. When wetlands are lost to development it inevitably leads to costly infrastructure projects—such as dams, levees, diversion channels, storm sewers, and sewage treatment plant upgrades—designed to perform the same services that the wetlands had performed for free. Taxpayers are not just on the hook for the initial construction of such infrastructure, but also for maintaining it in perpetuity. Wetlands loss also impacts the property of those living downstream, resulting in more frequent and severe flooding, lower streamflow during dry periods, and poorer water quality....
