Bishop: Republican "Dirty Water" Bill Moves Our Nation Back

BISHOP: REPUBLICAN "DIRTY WATER" BILL MOVES OUR NATION BACK

Congressman Tim Bishop said legislation passed in the House today to prevent the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from enforcing federal water quality standards "moves our nation back 40 years to before the enactment of the Clean Water Act."

Speaking on the House floor in opposition to H.R. 2018, the Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act of 2011, Bishop said the bill "would significantly undermine the Clean Water Act and could adversely affect public health, the economy, and the environment." The bill passed 239 to 184, with nearly all Republicans voting in favor.

A coalition of over 150 environmental and sportsmen's groups expressed opposition to H.R. 2018 including: Izaak Walton League of America, National Wildlife Federation, Trout Unlimited, American Rivers, Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Clean Water Action, Clean Water Network, Defenders of Wildlife, Earth Justice, Environment America, League of Conservation Voters, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, Southern Environmental Law Center, Pew Environment
Group.

Bishop, Ranking Member of the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee, which has jurisdiction over the Clean Water Act, entered the EPA's analysis of the bill into the Congressional Record. It is available at http://timbishop.house.gov/uploads/EPA_2018.pdf

Bishop's full statement is available below:

Mr. Chairman, I am strongly opposed to H.R. 2018, the Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act of 2011.

Despite some of the arguments I've heard in favor of this legislation, H.R. 2018 has not been narrowly crafted to address issues related to nutrient criteria and surface coal mining. I echo the Administration's opposition to the bill when I say that H.R. 2018 would significantly undermine the Clean Water Act and could adversely affect public health, the economy, and the environment.

While proponents of this legislation argue that the changes to the Clean Water permitting structure are targeted to address the development of nutrient criteria, such as in the State of Florida, the fact that this legislation is drafted to include any "pollutant" means that its reach extends to any discharge from any point source in any waterbody in the United States.

Under this legislation, EPA would also be prohibited from recommending stricter discharge standards for toxic pollutants, such as lead or mercury -- even if the protection of human health is at stake -- unless the State consents to such changes. In my view, this policy does not more our nation forward, but rather reverses our direction and moves our nation back 40 years to before the enactment of the Clean Water Act.

Some of my friends would like to avoid a "one-size-fits-all" approach to regulating clean water. I would too. Luckily for us, the basic structure of the Clean Water Act already provides states enormous flexibility in setting water quality standards. Current law allows states to assume authority over day-to-day implementation of State permitting programs and allows states to implement more stringent controls on pollution within their borders. The Clean Water Act merely sets the baseline, minimum standard for water quality.

Prior to the Clean Water Act setting establishing a baseline, 70 percent of the nation's waters were unsafe for fishing, swimming, or drinking. I doubt any reasonable person would want Congress to return us to those days.

Some of my friends on the other side of the aisle have argued that this legislation is necessary because State authority to implement clean water programs is much improved since 1972 and states will do the right thing in protecting water quality.

I agree that individual states have increased their capacity to protect the water quality within their states; however, I think it is also fair to suggest that the Clean Water Act has been essential to this nation's efforts to double the number of waters meeting the "fishable and swimmable" standard since enactment of this statute in 1972.

In my view, elimination of EPA's oversight and authority for a minimum standard would allow a potential "race-to-the-bottom" for the establishment of pollution discharge limits within a state border. We have seen disputes between states, such as Arkansas and Oklahoma, or North Carolina and Tennessee. Among states like Alabama, Georgia, and Florida, the potential opportunities for one state to send its pollution downstream to another state are real, and needs to be prevented.

Mr. Chairman, the role that Congress established for EPA in the Clean Water Act, and has served our nation well for almost 40 years. It has protected public health, and it has been an effective mechanism to protect the many businesses and industries that rely on clean water.

Clearly, the Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act does little to move our nation forward, but rather is a solution in search of a problem. I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.

Source