Federal Control of Streams and Ditches is not the Answer

Weekly Column by Congressman Doc Hastings

April 18, 2008

Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman James Oberstar, a Democrat from Minnesota , recently held a congressional hearing on legislation he authored that threatens to dramatically expand the reach of the federal government by increasing the scope of the Clean Water Act.

When Congress passed the Clean Water Act in 1972, the intent was clear – the federal government, working with the states, should ensure that our water quality is protected. Although this is a goal embraced by all Americans, the scope and implementation of federal regulations under this law has been the subject of controversy and litigation for decades.

Like so many other federal environmental laws, the Clean Water Act is well intentioned, but radical environmentalists continue to attempt to expand it far beyond what Congress intended – resulting in serious consequences for Western communities.

By removing the term "navigable" from the definitions used in the Clean Water Act, the Oberstar bill would take control of all waters (including ditches, ponds and irrigation canals) away from state and local governments and put all bodies of water under federal control. The bill also expands federal government jurisdiction to include "all activities that affect these waters." This six word change would mandate federal control over an almost limitless array of activities on land that are unrelated to water use. The proposed legislation is so sweeping, homeowners might soon need to get federal government permits to disturb mud puddles in their own backyards.

Water is a precious commodity, especially to those of us in the West. It is a necessary resource for many activities including agriculture, energy, transportation and recreation. Our economy and way of life cannot afford to have the federal government cavalierly or casually claim control over all waterways without scientific justification and a direct link to an overriding national public purpose. If this proposal becomes law, the only guarantee is that there will be more paperwork, more bureaucratic red tape and federal micromanagement of private landowners – not better water quality.

This month I met with several local irrigation districts, and like me, they are concerned about the impacts this proposal would have on their ability to manage local resources. I used the recent congressional hearing as an opportunity to share these concerns with lawmakers on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. I’m hopeful that, in the end, Congress will uphold the long-held right of states to control and regulate waters within their boundaries and respect that local governments are fully capable of ensuring the protection of the environment and private property rights.