Clean Water Restoration Act Gains Detractors

June 17, 2009

Email this story Print this post Add your comments

Advocacy groups representing utilities, industry, agriculture and landowners are mounting an offensive against the proposed Clean Water Restoration Act, which is coming up for committee vote in the Senate.

The act, S 787, would broaden regulation of the nation’s waterways, most notably removing the requirement that regulated waterways be “navigable.”

In so doing, the government would essentially be able to regulate everything from standing water in floodplains to creeks that run behind business and residences.

In a letter to Senate Environment and Public Works Chair Barbara Boxer and ranking member James Inhofe, the American Farm Bureau Federation said that the proposed law would “extend to all water — anywhere from farm ponds, to storm water retention basins, to roadside ditches, to desert washes, to streets and gutters, even to a puddle of rainwater,” stated the letter. “For the first time in the 36-year history of the act, activities that have no impact on actual rivers and lakes would be subject to full federal regulation.”

Agricultural operations would be subject to civil lawsuits that currently are not possible, the Farm Bureau stated. If un-navigable waterways are added, businesses and farms would be subject to civil lawsuits from organizations and individuals who don’t like the way the business or farm is using property, reports Wilson County News.

The Heritage Foundation calls the act “troubled waters for property owners.”

The foundation says, “The CWRA is an invitation for federal regulators (or environmental organizations filing lawsuits) to shut down any use of land that they don’t like so long as there is a little water somewhere in the vicinity. If the past is any guide, this law will be used to stop a tremendous amount of economic activity.”

The act has the support of conservation groups including Ducks Unlimited, the National Wildlife Federation, the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, and Trout Unlimited, states Ammoland.com.

The Clean Water Restoration Act calls for regulation over “all waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide, the territorial seas, and all interstate and intrastate waters and their tributaries, including lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams),” including “mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, natural ponds….”

The act may come up for vote in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee June 18.

The National Center for Public Policy Research has created a Web site with links about the act.

Email this story Print this post Add your comments

Advertisers

Enhance Sustainability. Improve Profitability.

Learn how at the SAP Sustainability Resource Center. >>

Unclear about the EPA's new GHG Rule?

Learn how it could affect your business. >>

EPA mandatory emissions reporting starts Jan 1st

CSA Standards can help your organization get ready for compliance. Find out how. >>

Best Practices: Product Environmental Compliance

How to achieve compliance at a significantly lower cost. Download the full report. >>

Join the Discussion

Reader Comments

From the Great Lakes to Puget Sound, from the Mississippi River to the Everglades, and from Chesapeake Bay to the Colorado – we can only protect the great waters of America if we safeguard the countless streams that feed them and the millions of acres of wetlands that help keep them clean. Perhaps that is why today, the Senate EPW committee rejected the spurious arguments of the powerful polluters cited in your article, and instead voted to restore protections vital to America’s great waters. As its name indicates, the Clean Water Restoration Act does no more than restore the original scope of the Clean Water Act that our nation adopted some 37 years ago – to protect all the waters of the United States.

John Rumpler | June 18th, 2009

John Rumpler is Senior Attorney for Environment America, a network of environmental advocacy organizations in 27 states.

John Rumpler | June 18th, 2009

Just wait until some greens don’t like the puddles in your driveway. lawsuits for everyone!!!!

Just Blaze | June 29th, 2009

Thank you for your article on the CWRA. Here’s how it works: The trust agency for the CWRA (currently USACE & EPA under current CWA) would issue guidance on what would be determined jurisdictional under the new CWRA, and current methods for delineation would be employed in the field. Tying a wetland to a navigable water body would not be a component of the jurisdictional determination, but could be a factor. Important to differentiate stream beds (bounded by ordinary high water marks) and wetlands (boundary determined in the field using delineation techniques). In practice, you’d probably see more isolated wetlands regulated, but under current Significant Nexus Test guidance for streambeds, I doubt that more streams would be regulated under a CWRA because the current SNT guidance is easily broadly applicable. In summary, as far as extent of regulation, you’d see a jurisdictional determinations resembling pre-SWANCC decision (which removed jurisdiction for isolated wetlands) for wetlands and streambed jurisdictions similar to what we have now post Rapanos decision (which provided for the SNT).

Taylor Houston | August 19th, 2009

Who wrote this article and what are his/her credentials

Adam | September 24th, 2009

Recent Daily News [ see all ]

11/20/2009
11/19/2009
11/18/2009

Charts [ see all ]

European Paper Industry Cuts CO2 Emissions by 42% since 1990

S. America Takes Most Urgent View of Copenhagen Talks

Nike Tops Annual Climate Action Scores

Oceans May Trap more Carbon than Forests

Jobs

View All Jobs >> Post a Job >>

Comments and Discussions

Trade Association on Trade Group on EPA Chemical Regs: ‘If Everything is a Priority, Then Nothing is a Priority’
"Seriously… that..."

Gary Markowitz on Supermarkets Tackle Emissions Reductions, Fuel Efficiency
"Supermarkets waste over 10 percent of their energy through improper..."

peter in ireland on Ontario May Follow California’s Lead on TV Energy Efficiency
"Governor Schwarzenegger is shooting himself in the foot! 1...."

Environmental Leader on S. America Takes Most Urgent View of Copenhagen Talks
"The survey respondents (the PDF report mentions 4,000 respondents in 38..."

Jake on UPS Trying New Hydraulic Hybrid Trucks
"A point of clarification: the Reuters press release referenced herein reports that 20 UPS will purchase..."

Custom Organic Shirts on S. America Takes Most Urgent View of Copenhagen Talks
"90% of North Americans believe it is urgent to get a global climate..."

peter dublin on California City’s Green Building Ordinance Applies to Commercial Buildings
"Why energy efficiebnt regulation on buildings –..."

Environmental Leader