Editorials

Senate committee hearings regarding the Clean Water Restoration Act last week did not get broad national coverage but the topic is one of considerable significance to all Americans.

Merits of the Act, which would give the federal government regulatory authority over an unprecedented number of local, small-scale bodies of water, were discussed before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

The Act, introduced by Rep. James Oberstar (D-Minn.) and Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) would include expansion of coverage to areas only intermittently wet.

Opposition to the proposed legislation has been strong, questioning the idea of providing the federal government such extensive jurisdiction over water matters.

"The federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act explicitly applies only to the nation's 'navigable waters.' State and local governments rightfully retain jurisdiction over lesser bodies of water that have no legitimate federal interest," said James M. Taylor, senior fellow for environmental policy at The Heartland Institute.

Overzealous court rulings have considered three-inch-deep seasonal creeks as navigable waters subject to federal rules and regulations, Taylor noted, but supporters of the Clean Water Restoration Act are not content with that and "seek to strip even the navigable waters requirement from federal jurisdiction."

Under the new bill "there would be no limit to the reach of federal power," he warned. "The last thing American citizens need is EPA bureaucrats asserting jurisdiction over seasonal puddles in people's backyards, looking to file criminal charges every time somebody shores up a mucky depression to improve his land."

Such opinions of the proposed Act are not unique. A nationwide survey released in March by the National Center for Public Policy Research found that most Americans oppose the plan.

In the poll, voters were informed Congress is considering a measure that would expand the reach of the Clean Water Act, including to areas only intermittently wet. They were then provided brief arguments both for and against the measure and asked whether they favored or opposed the proposal.

Of those expressing an opinion, 54 percent opposed the measure while 46 percent favored, according to the survey. Among political independents the margin was greater - 56 percent opposed to 44 percent favoring.

"Americans reject the key feature of the Oberstar-Feingold proposal, that waters need not be navigable - or even be waters - to be subject to federal regulation," said David Ridenour, vice president of the National Center. "It is significant that independents, who are increasingly seen as an important barometer of the national mood, reject Oberstar-Feingold by a whopping 12 percentage points."

A poll released a week earlier by the Western Business Roundtable found 63 percent of those surveyed oppose the measure with 47 percent strongly opposing it. That survey also found 58 percent of respondents would oppose any change in the law that would "transfer the authority to the federal government over groundwater, ditches, pipes, streets, gutters and desert features."

"It is self-evident that the proposed changes are pretty extreme and take away the local decision-making process," observed Darrell Henry of the WBR. "People understand the Clean Air Act is delicately crafted to both protect the environment and ensure that local voices are heard regarding clean water issues."

The National Center poll found a majority of respondents from all regions of the nation opposed the proposed expansion of the Clean Water Act.

A delicate balance of the Clean Air Act to both protect the environment and ensure local voices are heard regarding clean water issues has produced a record of long term success.

A majority of Americans agree the Clean Water Act "don't need fixing."

()