Political Science

Wednesday, December 24, 2003; Page A14

OVER THE PAST several days, the Bush administration has changed its mind about the scientific merits of two environmental issues. For this administration, which has so often preferred to stick to bad ideas rather than admit they are bad, and which has seemed so addicted to political manipulation of science, such changes are worth noting -- particularly as both are still open to further manipulation.The first change came out of the Environmental Protection Agency, whose new administrator, Mike Leavitt, announced last week his intention to reverse a previous proposed rule that would have removed protections from the nation's rivers, streams and wetlands. The second came out of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which produced a biological assessment of the Missouri River that concurred, at least in part, with previous assessments. This was welcome because the scientists responsible had been appointed to cast a "fresh eye" on the issue, and many feared they would come up with answers more acceptable to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and shipping companies rather than the wildlife that live in and along the river.

In both cases, applause for the "change of heart" must be accompanied by caveats. This is particularly true in the case of the Missouri River assessment, which conceded that river flows, now mechanically controlled, should be made to mimic natural flows -- high in the spring and low in the summer -- so that several nearly extinct species of fish and birds can survive. Despite this concession, the report left open several loopholes that could allow the Corps to modify significantly the change in water flow. The extraordinary feature in this instance is that few dispute the fact that the natural flows favored by environmentalists are probably economically advantageous as well, or that some of the proposals to compensate for artificially high flows with artificial wildlife habitats will likely cost far more than merely altering the level of the water.

In the end, the same cost-benefit analysis may hold for the wetlands issue too: Adding it up, the costs of cleaning up dirty water, plus the damage to fishing and sporting industries, probably outweigh whatever economic benefits would be gained by allowing developers to create more water pollution. For that reason it is important that EPA follow through on the administration's change of heart by writing directives to the Corps' field offices in the same spirit.

In neither case is it clear whether politics, economics or pressures from the hunting and fishing lobby have led to the administration's ostensible change of heart. But in both cases, it is absolutely clear that the scientific pronouncements must be followed up with more substantive policy changes, if they are not meant to be pre-election window dressing.