Introduction Of H.R. 5088, America's Commitment To Clean Water Act

Floor Speech

Introduction Of H.R. 5088, America's Commitment To Clean Water Act

* Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, today I am introducing ``America's Commitment to Clean Water Act,'' legislation to reaffirm the ability of the Clean Water Act to protect the Nation's waters, including wetlands. These waters support our nation's economic well-being, enable our quality of life, and sustain our environment for generations to come. Over its thirty-seven-year history, the Clean Water Act has restored countless rivers, lakes, and streams, protected drinking water supplies, and preserved water quality and water-related habitat essential to waterfowl, wildlife, and fisheries.

* In 1972, Congress set a goal that the Nation's waters would be fishable and swimmable by July 1, 1983. Great progress toward that goal has been made, but 40 percent of our waters still do not meet the goals and standards of the Act.

* In 2001 and 2006, two decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court threw the Nation's clean water programs into turmoil, creating confusion and uncertainty for communities, developers, and agricultural interests, and placing at risk the Nation's ability to restore, protect, and maintain water quality and the water-related environment.

* Turmoil, confusion, and uncertainty are no way to run a program. The result has been increased processing times and backlogs as the agencies struggle to interpret the court decisions. That is why I developed legislation to restore the common understanding of the scope of the Clean Water Act based on decades-old interpretations of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency.

* The bill will ensure that the Clean Water Act can cover the same waters as it did under the regulatory decisions in place in 2001. These decisions were based on a common understanding developed over the 29 years of the Act as to defining its appropriate scope.

* By restoring the common understanding and practice of protecting the Nation's waters and wetlands as existed prior to 2001, we can provide much-needed certainty to the regulated community, and avoid costly litigation over responsibility for protecting clean water. We can also restore bedrock protections for our citizens and our neighborhoods from polluters who place families and communities at risk.

* Clean, safe water is a basic right for all Americans. Yet, unless we act, the Clean Water Act cannot ensure that right.

* The New York Times reports that as a result of the Supreme Court decisions companies have spilled oil, carcinogens and dangerous bacteria into lakes, rivers and other waters without being prosecuted. EPA regulators working on those cases, estimate that more than 1,500 major pollution investigations have been discontinued or shelved in the last four years.

* Data from 2008, the most recent year available, show there were over 20,000 beach closings and advisories that year due to pollution, and studies in the Great Lakes show that as many as 10 percent of beachgoers report getting sick after swimming in beach waters open for swimming.

* Drinking water protection areas that contain one or more small or intermittent streams that would be vulnerable to pollution under the Supreme Court decisions provide drinking water to more than 117,000,000 people in the United States.

* These examples demonstrate why we must act.

* Two years ago I conducted a thorough hearing where I heard from two dozen witnesses on five panels of everything that was good and bad about my prior legislative proposal. I invited suggestions from any and all interested parties.

* The bill I introduce today is a new bill that responds to those comments. It more clearly and specifically targets its one objective--addressing the SWANCC and Rapanos decisions, decisions I believe were wrongly decided.

* Among the significant changes from my earlier bill:

* To avoid the possible need for new regulations, the bill uses the current regulatory definition of ``waters of the United States'' to establish the scope of the Act.

* The bill codifies an exemption for prior converted croplands.

* The bill codifies an exemption for waste treatment systems.

* The bill explicitly states that ground water is considered separately from ``waters of the United States.''

* The bill explicitly states that it does not affect the authority of EPA or the Corps as that authority existed prior to SWANCC in 2001.

* The bill places limits on Federal jurisdiction by specifying the Constitutional authority for the Clean Water Act, and preserving the Federal/State cooperation that is the hallmark of the Act.

* The bill removes all language related to ``activities''. That term created unnecessary confusion on what would require a Clean Water Act permit. Since enactment in 1972, permits are required only for discharges.

* The bill preserves the exemptions, limitations, and practices under the Act.

* The bill includes multiple clarifying changes to emphasize that the bill will reaffirm and restore the original scope of the Clean Water Act, and not expand its geographic scope.

* Opponents of legislation to restore the Clean Water Act characterize the restoration as a mammoth expansion of Federal power. Restoring the Clean Water Act is only an expansion to the extent the Supreme Court ignored the intent of Congress and 30 years of precedent by narrowing the Act.

* Opponents argue that the Federal government should not require a permit for everything you do that might affect a wet area. I agree. The Clean Water Act never required such permits and I do not offer legislation that would do so.

* Simply put, if it was not regulated before 2001, it will not be regulated with the enactment of the legislation.

* Some people have opposed the Clean Water Act for decades, and it should not come as a surprise that these same groups are using recent Supreme Court decisions as justification to roll back protections under the Clean Water Act. For the sake of future generations, progress must not be rolled back. We must advance the cause of clean water by sustaining the original purpose of the Act.

* In 1972, Congress voted overwhelmingly to overturn President Nixon's veto of the Clean Water Act and to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters. Since that time, Americans have overwhelmingly expressed their support for protecting our Nation's waters and keeping them safe from polluters. The bill will restore America's commitment to clean water.

Source