|
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 |
Opposition Letter to Rep. Oberstar's Clean Water Act Legisla tion
A
Clean Water Act oversight hearing is scheduled for next week in the
House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. The hearing is being
billed as a simple oversight hearing, but the purpose is to build a
record for H.R. 2421, the Clean Water Act "restoration" bill
introduced by Congressman James Oberstar (D-MINNESOTA). The
hearing witness list has not been finalized.
The
Family Farm Alliance board of directors on July 6th formally
opposed H.R. 2421, and sent the following letter to
Congress earlier this week.
The
Democrats do intend to consider H.R. 2421 but have yet to set a
timeline.
Mr.
Oberstar, chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee, has acquired 163 cosponsors to his legislation. I’ve listed
the Western co-sponsors of H.R. 2421 below.
Dan
Keppen
Executive
Director
Family
Farm
Western Sponsors of HR 2421 [157]
Rep.
Sheila Jackson-Lee [D-TX]
Rep. Grace F. Napolitano [D-CA]
Rep.
Lucille Roybal-Allard [D-CA]
****************************************************************************************************************
(541)-850-9007
July
6, 2007
Dear
Member of Congress:
On
behalf of the members of the Family Farm Alliance (
The
CWARA
would appear to grant the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) unprecedented regulatory
control over all “intrastate waters” – which some will interpret
as essentially all wet areas within a state. Importantly, it fails to
clarify any limits on this expanded and uncertain authority.
We
are also gravely concerned about the broader implications associated
with the redefining of “navigable waters” contemplated by this bill.
There is already confusion over the waters to which Section 404 of the
CWA applies; CWARA raises concerns regarding jurisdictional
determination that apply to the entirety of the CWA. Rather
than clarify jurisdictional questions, CWARA would create still more
uncertainty as to even routine activities such as pumping irrigation
water from one area to another. Such implications could have huge
ramifications for simple operations that do not adversely impact the
water quality of
CWARA
fails to recognize the primary right and responsibility of States to
control local water use decisions, which appears to be inconsistent with
Section 101(b) of the existing CWA. It also does not explain how an
expanded federal presence in the water quality arena will impact the
existing state processes that are already addressing the same issues
CWARA purports to address. It is not as if there is a vacuum of clean
water regulations; state regulatory processes are in place and they are
working.
Further,
as the number of waters subject to federal water quality standards
increases, untold time and resources will be spent at the local level
dealing with the Corps and EPA, further encumbering a system that is
already known to be overburdened and less then responsive. This adds yet
another degree of uncertainty to farmers and ranchers who require a
reliable water supply in order to secure operating loans and other types
of financing. To avoid this unintended but certain outcome, new CWA
legislation should instead more narrowly and clearly define existing
authority.
Already,
unnecessary restrictions have been placed on private landowners trying
to use their property and on the ability of local agencies to operate
and maintain man-made canals and ditches. Also, as more Westerners look
at agricultural waters to supply future municipal needs, more water
treatment plants are being built off rivers and canal systems to treat
surface water to drinking supply standards. For these interests, the
CWARA could produce additional Section 404 permitting and delays,
further impeding the exercise of vested property rights and food
production, and disrupting the ability to efficiently move water to
treatment plants.
As
but one example, consider the routine maintenance of the thousands of
miles of existing ditches and canals in the West that transport water
for agricultural, municipal, and industrial uses. These facilities -
some over a century old - require continual maintenance in order to
serve the functions for which they were constructed. Such maintenance
activities include routine activities like replacing concrete panels and
riprap, stabilizing channels and channel banks stabilization, connecting
pipes, and controlling aquatic weeds.
The
purpose of this work is to better manage and conserve limited water
supplies, and in many cases, to maintain flood carrying capacity.
Generally, maintenance activities are performed during limited windows
of time when there is little or no flow in the canal, and direct water
quality impacts are therefore minimal or non-existent. In fact,
many maintenance activities, such as bank stabilization, protect and
enhance water quality, the goal of the CWA. Most of these activities
currently do not require Section 404 permits.
However,
as drafted CWARA could, and likely would, be interpreted to require
Section 404 permits for many routine maintenance activities.
Nationwide, we are told there is a current backlog of at least 15,000
CWA permit requests. Even the most straight-forward Section 404 permit
can take months or years to process now – time that system operators
don’t always have. Further delays in meeting the expanded
permitting requirements of CWARA will result in the disruption of vital
water supply operations and deferral of maintenance activities necessary
to assure supply reliability, flood protection and water quality.
Congress
has a unique opportunity to instill a common-sense approach to
protecting our water quality and related resources; one that steers
clear of creating certain havoc in surface water operations throughout
the country by clarifying that man-made ditches are not jurisdictional.
Unfortunately, the proposed CWARA is ambiguous and will lead to
uncertainty and litigation. We urge you to consider the
appropriate protections already afforded
Western
family farmers and ranchers urge clarity, not expansion of the
Clean Water Act.
Sincerely,
Patrick
O’Toole
President