| Okay, so I did a little more research into the Clean Water Restoration Act and the claims made by Roy Brown and Dennis Rehberg.
What did I find out?
The CWRA is not inherently "new" or "unprecedented" federal control over water. It is intended to restore the Clean Water Act to its original intent and historic interpretation from 1972 through 2006, at which time the Supreme Court hamstrung the government's ability to protect wetlands and small streams from pollution.
The CWRA would not increase federal control or bureaucratic interference. In fact, it would reduce the paperwork required by federal agencies and reduce waiting-times and costs for developers.
There's two options here. Either Brown and Rehberg are ignorant of the bill, its probable effect and its intent; or they're willfully misconstruing the issue for the benefit of polluters, while simultaneously trying to stir up the usual fears of government among rural voters.
Details and history about the bill below the fold... |
| It's 1989. Michigan developer John Rapanos wants to build a mall on his property. There's a problem, though. His lands houses seasonal wetlands, which, at the time, at the time are protected by the Clean Water Act. He'll need a permit to develop. At least that's what the state regulators say. At least that's what his own consultant says. But Rapanos says hell with 'em all, and backfills the wetlands.
Rapanos is arrested, charged and convicted of violating federal law and fined. He appeals. And appeals again. And again. And loses every time. For years. Until 2006, when the Supreme Court, fully stocked with pro-corporate justices by the Bush administration, hears the case. They decide in his favor.
Why? Because the Clean Water Act mentions federal control only over "navigable waters," and Rapanos' wetlands "only" drained into to a small creek, which wound its way for 11 miles to the nearest navigable water, the Kawkawlin River. The federal government, says SCOTUS, has no jurisdiction over the marshes, and more than 20 years of regulatory protection of our country's wetlands goes "poof."
Remember, this is the bill of which Roy Brown himself wrote, "The Clean Water Act has been a largely successful policy that has helped to restore and protect navigable waterways, and as a result, Montana and the rest of the country has benefited." It was a popular and successful law by most standards.
Now, it's a clusterf*ck of federal bureaucracy. That's because the SCOTUS' Rapanos decision forces the US Army Corps of Engineers to document and decide whether any development on US wetlands falls into federal jurisdiction, adding a regulatory step to many development projects.
According to an October 15, 2007, article in the Duluth News Tribune, "Wetland rules hit St. Louis county" (sorry, no link), the bureaucratic kink caused by Rapanos has resulted in new red tape, increased construction costs, and construction delays:
No one has tallied the cost of the court ruling, which is delaying construction of all kinds - from building new homes, pipelines and docks to putting poles in the ground - but anyone who plans a project in wetlands, from a sometimes-swampy area to Lake Superior itself, could experience lengthy delays. And delays mean higher costs because construction costs are rising rapidly.
The U.S. Corps of Engineers' St. Paul office, which issues wetlands construction permits for Minnesota and parts of adjoining states, reports permit backlogs of up to a year for major projects such as pipelines and utility construction, and up to six months on routine projects. Nationwide, the corps is spending millions of dollars to hire people to administer the new program.
The price tag for St. Louis County is being used in Congress as a reason to pass a law to simplify the process.
"Our current best estimate is that this will add anywhere from four to six months to the process, more than doubling the current process at this time," St. Louis County Public Works Director Marcus Hall recently told a House committee. "And in northern states, this means a delay of our projects for a full construction season. With construction inflation running between 4 percent and 7 percent, this represents an annual cost of between $1 million and $2 million for St. Louis County each year."
St. Louis County's figures are higher than many because so much of the county 35 percent is considered wetlands. But similar stories are popping up elsewhere.
Enter the Clean Water Restoration Act.
You won't have to read far to find the bill's purpose:
To reaffirm the original intent of Congress in enacting the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (86 Stat. 816) to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the waters of the United States.
And you'll probably be surprised to find out, if you've been getting your information from Brown/Rehberg, that the Act doesn't give any additional powers to the federal government that wasn't found in the Clean Water Act for the 24 years prior to Rapanos. And you'll be glad to know that the clearer definition of protected water in CWRA eliminates the added regulatory step required by the current interpretation of the Clean Water Act.
It's a simple issue, really. Do you believe that our drinking water should be protected at its source from polluters, or not? |
