http://www.westernroundtable.net/mail/util.cfm?gpiv=1999911205.72630.145&gen=1
Western Business Roundtable
Poll Results Back Group's Stance
Against Expansion Of Clean Water
Act
H.R. 2421/S. 1870 – the
‘Oberstar bill’ - would impact a
whole range of economic
activities not currently covered
by the CWA and
give Feds too much control over
local water and land use
GOLDEN, Co. (Feb.
27, 2008) – The Western Business
Roundtable today announced poll
results that show strong public
support for the Roundtable’s
stance against changes to the
federal Clean Water Act.
A survey
conducted earlier this month by
Public Opinion Strategies shows
63 percent of respondents oppose
changes to the Clean Water Act,
which for 35 years has helped
ensure that Americans enjoy
among the cleanest rivers and
lakes in the world. Of that 63
percent, 47 percent “strongly
oppose” any change in the CWA
that would give the federal
government veto power over state
and local governments when it
comes to local land and water
use decisions.
The survey also
said 58 percent of respondents
would oppose any change in law
that would “transfer the
authority to the federal
government over groundwater,
ditches, pipes, streets, gutters
and desert features within every
state and community.”
Legislation being
considered by Congress – the
“Clean Water Restoration Act of
2007” – would change the CWA,
and it has set the stage for
what many in the Western U. S.
consider an unprecedented attack
on the state sovereignty of the
region.
The bill - H.R.
2421/S. 1870, sponsored by U.S.
Rep. James Oberstar (D-Minn.) in
the House and Sen. Russ Feingold
(D-Wis.) in the Senate - would
dramatically expand the reach of
the federal bureaucracy over
virtually every wet area in the
United States. Roundtable
President and CEO Jim Sims has
noted the Oberstar bill “would
fundamentally erode the ability
of Westerners, and state
governments in particular, to
manage their water resources and
would cause an avalanche of new
unfunded mandates for state and
local governments.”
Only 24 percent
of poll respondents supported
expanded federal authority. The
poll of 800 registered voters
was conducted Feb. 6-7 and Feb.
9-10, 2008, and has a margin of
error of plus or minus 3.5
percent.
Sims, in a letter
this week to state legislators
across the nation, said the
Oberstar bill would make it
“more costly to grow crops,
provide water to cities, operate
and maintain water storage and
delivery facilities, produce
energy (including renewable
power), build and maintain
public transportation systems,
deliver affordable goods and
services to consumers, and carry
out virtually any activity that
occurs on the land without
federal agencies constantly
threatening to interfere.”
Added Sims: “In
short, this legislation amounts
to one of the most breathtaking
expansions of federal hegemony
over Western states in many
years.”
The Western
Business Roundtable has taken
the lead in organizing
opposition to this legislation.
In December the Roundtable
sponsored a press conference on
Capitol Hill where congressional
and state lawmakers, along with
agriculture and business
leaders, spoke out against the
Oberstar bill. Among the
speakers was U.S. Rep. John Mica
(R-Fla.), ranking member of the
House Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee.
Said Mica: “There
is clearly growing opposition to
this legislation. It's a very
serious issue and any aspect of
our society would be adversely
affected by this bill."
"It would lead to
a host of unintended
consequences and probably lead
to a field day for attorneys. It
would be a disaster for
business, industry and
agriculture. It would hurt
farmers, ranchers, and
particularly small-business
people. It would create absolute
chaos. It would extend the
federal government's reach to
the gutters and downspouts of
your home."
For more
information about that press
conference, and to listen to
statements from other lawmakers
who oppose the bill, click
here.
The CWRA was
introduced as a way to broaden
protections under the Clean
Water Act by bringing all U.S.
waters under the control of the
federal government. The bill’s
sponsors contend U.S. waters are
threatened due to Supreme Court
decisions in 2001 and 2006 that
clarified which waters fall
under federal jurisdiction.
The Roundtable,
along with groups such as the
Partnership for America,
American Farm Bureau Federation,
National Cattlemen’s Beef
Association, American Property
Coalition, Property Rights
Alliance and Americans for
American Energy, believes there
is no need to change the
existing Clean Water Act.
Said Sims: “The
Oberstar legislation would
reopen the CWA and turn it into
a tool to carry out an
unprecedented attack on state
and local sovereignty. It would
give the federal government veto
power over local land use
decisions, and jurisdiction over
virtually every wet area in the
West.
“It’s a threat to
private landowners’ rights
because it would give the Feds
authority to tell citizens and
local governments what they can
or can’t do with their own
water.”
The CWRA expands
the jurisdictional sweep of the
Clean Water Act by changing the
waters to be regulated from
“navigable waters” to “waters of
the United States.”
The Roundtable
has several specific concerns,
including:
1) That the
legislation would expand the
regulatory reach of the
Environmental Protection Agency
and the Army Corps of Engineers
to include essentially all
arguably wet areas (or areas wet
at some time) in the U.S.,
giving the federal government
jurisdiction over groundwater,
ditches, pipes, streets, gutters
and desert features.
2) That the
legislation would expand the
legal basis for the Clean Water
Act, moving it beyond the
current jurisdiction under the
“commerce clause” in the U.S.
Constitution, which limits
Congressional authority over
water to the ability to regulate
commerce. The new legislation
would make Congressional
authority over any U.S. water
virtually unlimited.
3) That H.R.
2421/S. 1870 would essentially
grant EPA and the Corps a veto
over local land-use policies.
Any activity involving water
could be affected, including
commercial and residential real
estate development, agriculture,
electric transmission,
transportation, mining and
energy development – even
recreational activities.
4) That the
legislation would eliminate
existing regulatory limitations
that allow common-sense uses
such as prior converted cropland
and waste treatment systems.
Currently, the CWA’s rules
acknowledge limitations covering
those elements.
5) That H.R.
2421/S. 1870’s expanded
definition would burden state
and local governments both
administratively and
financially. A broad expansion
of the CWA’s jurisdiction would
put unfunded mandates on those
entities, including requirements
to adopt water quality standards
(including monitoring and
reporting).
It would also
impact land-use plans,
floodplain regulations, building
and other codes, watershed and
storm water plans, and likely
delay development of new
projects and maintenance of
existing infrastructure.
6) That the
legislation would cause water
providers, landowners and
water-use entities’ liability
risk to grow.
Under an expanded
CWA, citizen suit liability and
exposure for attorney
fees’ awards would increase for
all landowners with water
features on or near their
properties. Similar concerns and
risks would be faced by all
water delivery and water-use
entities.
The Roundtable,
backed by its members along with
several other organizations, and
also by today’s poll showing
strong voter support for its
stance, asks those in Congress
to stand up for the West and the
United States by actively
opposing H.R. 2421/S. 1870 and
other efforts to expand the CWA.