Business Group At Forefront Of Opposition To Federal Water Grab Legislation
Roundtable offers testimony against 'Oberstar bill' at House committee hearing, warns of extreme changes to Clean Water Act
GOLDEN, Co. (April 16, 2008) – The Western Business Roundtable today continued to lead the national and Western opposition to an unprecedented expansion of the Clean Water Act, which for 35 years has helped ensure that Americans enjoy some of the world's cleanest lakes and rivers.
The Roundtable today offered testimony against against the "Clean Water Restoration Act of 2007 (H.R. 2421/S. 1870)" during a hearing in the House Transporation and Infrastructure Committee. U.S. Rep. James Oberstar (D-Minn.) , the committee chairman, is chief sponsor of H.R. 2421. U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) is sponsoring the legislation in the Senate.
The Roundtable's testimony noted that the measure promises extreme changes to the Clean Water Act, with devastating consequences for the nation, particularly the West. The Roundtable was joined by dozens of other organizations also concerned about the legislation's potential impact on water- and land-use decisions across the country.
The "Oberstar bill," as its commonly known, would expand the federal government's control over U.S. waters to such an extent that even periodically wet ground - something as small as a backyard puddle - would come under federal control.
"This bill represents one of the most expansive power grabs by the federal government over state and local control in memory," said Jim Sims, President and CEO of the Western Business Roundtable. "The extent to which this bill puts states and their water resources under the thumb of the federal government is simply astounding."
"This bill would give federal agencies domain over virtually every wet area in the nation. It will fundamentally erode the ability of citizens, and state governments in particular, to manage our own water resources. It would cause an avalanche of new unfunded mandates to envelop state and local governments."
Sims added: "It will 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."
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. But by changing the Clean Water Act's jurisdictional sweep from regulation of “navigable waters” to “waters of the United States,” the bill would have "a devastating impact on Western state sovereignty and virtually every citizen in our region," Sims said.
"There is virtually no business or job-creating activity in the nation that would not be adversely affected by this bill," he added.
The Roundtable recently released results of a poll showing 63 percent of Americans surveyed oppose changes to the Clean Water Act. Of that number, 47 percent said they "strongly oppose" any changes.
The National Center for Public Policy Research today released a poll with similar findings. It found 54 percent of all respondents oppose changes to the law, and 56 percent of those who call themselves political "independents" said they would oppose such action.
The Roundtable recently sent a letter to state legislators and county commissioners to alert them to the Oberstar bill's sweeping expansion of federal power, the latest in a series of mailings from the Roundtable to U.S. elected officials concerning this measure. The Roundtable also sponsored a press conference on Capitol Hill in December, at which time several U.S. business organizations - including the American Farm Bureau Federation, National Cattlemen's Beef Association, Property Rights Alliance and the Partnership for America - spoke in opposition to the Oberstar bill.
Several members of Congress, including U.S. Rep. John Mica (R-Fla.), ranking member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, also outlined their opposition to the legislation.
"It's a very serious issue and any aspect of our society would be adversely affected by this bill," Mica said.
The Roundtable has several specific concerns about the bill. Sims has pointed out that the legislation:
1) Would expand the regulatory reach of the Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers to include essentially all 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) 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) 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) 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) Would implement an expanded definition of waters that would burden state and local governments both administratively and financially. A broad expansion of the CWA’s jurisdiction would put un-funded mandates on those entities, including requirements to adopt water quality standards (including monitoring and reporting).
6) 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.
7) Would cause water providers, landowners and water-use entities’ liability risk to grow.
Sims added that, under an expanded CWA, citizen suit liability and exposure for attorneys' 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.
Below are links to two documents the Roundtable has made available to the public as part of its nationwide effort in opposition to this attempted federal water grab.
To review a detailed backgrounder on why this legislation should not be approved by Congress, go here.
To review a Roundtable analysis of the legislation, go here.