|
Property-rights groups slam proposed Clean Water Act changes |
|
|
|
Legislation from congressional Democrats aimed at clarifying the scope
of the Clean Water Act would result in an unprecedented expansion of
federal regulatory power, according to a coalition of property-rights
and taxpayer groups that sent a letter yesterday to House Speaker Nancy
Pelosi (D-Calif.).
Proponents of the "Clean Water Restoration Act," from Sen. Russ
Feingold (D-Wis.) and Rep. James Oberstar (D-Minn.), argue it will end
jurisdictional confusion left in the wake of two confusing Supreme
Court decisions by ensuring that creeks, small streams and seasonal
wetlands are protected. S. 1870 and H.R. 2421 would define the Clean
Water Act as covering "waters of the United States" instead of just
"navigable waters."
But signatories to the letter sent yesterday, led by a
conservative think tank called the National Center for Public Policy
Research, counter that the legislation would have the opposite of its
intended effect.
"The Clean Water Restoration Act would restore the virtually
limitless regulatory power federal agencies had assumed in
contravention of congressional intent," the letter states. "Greater
confusion over what waters are and are not subject to the act would
result, requiring the courts to attempt to sort things out."
The Supreme Court cases in question are Solid Waste Agency of
Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the joint
cases of Rapanos v. United States and Carabell v. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers.
Environmental groups including the National Wildlife
Federation, American Rivers and the Sierra Club have lined up in
support of the Oberstar and Feingold companion bills, arguing that the
nation's clean water goals won't be met unless the government protects
headwater stream systems and wetlands.
According to the Sierra Club, removing "navigable" would allow
the law to protect smaller rivers and streams that supply major waters.
The group insists the roles of such small waterways -- including those
that flow intermittently -- are often underestimated in bolstering
water supplies, cleansing pollution, storing flood water and
maintaining biodiversity.
The legislation has also earned the support of former U.S. EPA
Administrator Carol Browner, who recently testified before Congress
that the bill "leaves little doubt as to the scope of the Clean Water
Act in protecting our nation's waters" (E&E Daily, July 20).
But some Republicans question whether the bill would further
confuse the issue and result in more lawsuits. Senate Environment and
Public Works Committee ranking member James Inhofe (R-Okla.), who did
not sign the letter, agrees with its views.
"Senator Inhofe shares the view expressed in the letter that
the bill extends federal jurisdiction beyond just where we were prior
to SWANCC, that the bill would not provide certainty to the regulated
community, and it would likely lead to more lawsuits," said Inhofe
spokesman Matthew Dempsey.
Oberstar's legislation has been referred to the Transportation
and Infrastructure Committee, which he chairs. While lawmakers have yet
to mark up the bill, Oberstar wants to move the legislation this year,
according to spokeswoman Mary Kerr.
 |
Subscribe to this comment's feed
