|
Become a friend of the Klamath Bucket Brigade All donations are tax deductible |
|
This Website is Dedicated to Alvin Alexander Cheyne January 10, 1921 - June 17, 2005 |
New Clean Water Act 'fix'
needs fixing
Capital Press Editorial
July 25, 2008
What a
difference one word makes. In the case of the Clean Water
Restoration Act, the word is "navigable" - and the deletion of
that word from a proposed revision of the Clean Water Act has
unloosed a veritable torrent of conflicting views and debate.
The Clean Water Restoration Act of 2007, now before the Senate and the House of Representatives, was proposed out of good intentions. The aim was to update and revise the old CWA, eliminating some confusion in the law that was worsened by court decisions in the past few years.
Refining the measure hasn't been so easy, though.
The proposed CWRA has drawn fire from an array of agricultural and property rights groups: the Farm Bureau, livestock groups, grower groups and any number of agricultural groups around the country.
These groups are concerned, and rightly so, that the new measure will preempt local control over water management and regulation.
As a coalition of ranch, farm and food producer groups noted in a column to the Capital Press this spring, "Congress recognized the value of local needs in 1972 when it specifically applied federal CWA jurisdiction to 'navigable' waters." That specific language has been upheld by Congress in the ensuing years.
The revision of the act, however, deletes that key word. By endorsing that change, Congress would greatly expand the reach of the act. Under the new law, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers would take charge of not just of navigable waterways but all intrastate waterways - from rivers and streams to ditches and irrigation ponds, public or private - within a state.
Advocates of the revised law say the EPA isn't interested in every puddle in the West, but many rural landowners aren't convinced. Further worrying the ranch and farm groups is the idea that the federal agencies would control not just the waters, but the activities "affecting these waters" - regardless of whether they take place near the water or have any polluting impact on the water. Translate "activities" any way you wish - grazing and farmwork could certainly fit the bill - and it's not hard to see why rural folks are alarmed.
While we concur that all waters are important, it's not clear that ceding all state and local control over those resources to federal agencies is a positive step. In many parts of the West, where agriculture is an important mainstay of the economy, there's ongoing concern about conflicting and sometimes inconsequential regulation imposed by distant, faceless bureaucracies. The CWRA only heightens that concern.
Further, it ignores the work that has been done on regional levels to protect and enhance local water resources. It could be argued that private landowners working in concert with public land managers in the rural parts of the state have done as much or more in that regard than, say, our urban neighbors.
Many rural members of Congress have opposed it from the start. The chief sponsors, Sens. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., and Russ Feingold, D-Wis., must delete that fatal flaw from the bill.
Many initial supporters have withdrawn their backing for the bill, as written, because it goes farther than the original CWA intended and are looking for compromise language to fix the problem.
Other members of Congress should take another look, too. We think they'll find that rural America has good reason to dislike this troubled piece of legislation.
The Clean Water Restoration Act of 2007, now before the Senate and the House of Representatives, was proposed out of good intentions. The aim was to update and revise the old CWA, eliminating some confusion in the law that was worsened by court decisions in the past few years.
Refining the measure hasn't been so easy, though.
The proposed CWRA has drawn fire from an array of agricultural and property rights groups: the Farm Bureau, livestock groups, grower groups and any number of agricultural groups around the country.
These groups are concerned, and rightly so, that the new measure will preempt local control over water management and regulation.
As a coalition of ranch, farm and food producer groups noted in a column to the Capital Press this spring, "Congress recognized the value of local needs in 1972 when it specifically applied federal CWA jurisdiction to 'navigable' waters." That specific language has been upheld by Congress in the ensuing years.
The revision of the act, however, deletes that key word. By endorsing that change, Congress would greatly expand the reach of the act. Under the new law, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers would take charge of not just of navigable waterways but all intrastate waterways - from rivers and streams to ditches and irrigation ponds, public or private - within a state.
Advocates of the revised law say the EPA isn't interested in every puddle in the West, but many rural landowners aren't convinced. Further worrying the ranch and farm groups is the idea that the federal agencies would control not just the waters, but the activities "affecting these waters" - regardless of whether they take place near the water or have any polluting impact on the water. Translate "activities" any way you wish - grazing and farmwork could certainly fit the bill - and it's not hard to see why rural folks are alarmed.
While we concur that all waters are important, it's not clear that ceding all state and local control over those resources to federal agencies is a positive step. In many parts of the West, where agriculture is an important mainstay of the economy, there's ongoing concern about conflicting and sometimes inconsequential regulation imposed by distant, faceless bureaucracies. The CWRA only heightens that concern.
Further, it ignores the work that has been done on regional levels to protect and enhance local water resources. It could be argued that private landowners working in concert with public land managers in the rural parts of the state have done as much or more in that regard than, say, our urban neighbors.
Many rural members of Congress have opposed it from the start. The chief sponsors, Sens. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., and Russ Feingold, D-Wis., must delete that fatal flaw from the bill.
Many initial supporters have withdrawn their backing for the bill, as written, because it goes farther than the original CWA intended and are looking for compromise language to fix the problem.
Other members of Congress should take another look, too. We think they'll find that rural America has good reason to dislike this troubled piece of legislation.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted
material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit
research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml