Misinformation, falsehoods
Submitted by Journal Staff on July 10, 2007 - 11:59am.Filed under:
By Jim Oberstar, U.S. Representative
There are times when it can be downright discouraging to see how some groups and organizations will resort to misinformation and even outright falsehood in order to advance a political agenda. These groups simply do not understand that people in Minnesota are not easily fooled and will not be misled when they have access to the hard facts.
Opponents of my proposal to fix the Clean Water Act after it was damaged by two Supreme Court rulings, are ignoring an irrefutable fact: water flows downhill. Even the smallest rivers and streams flow into larger bodies of water, while wetlands are critical to preventing floods and filtering ground water. Unfortunately, those facts are not stopping opponents of clean water regulation from waging a negative campaign of distortions against the Clean Water Restoration Act of 2007.
Here are the facts about CWRA. It restores the Clean Water Act’s jurisdiction over our rivers, streams, and wetlands after much of that protection was removed by two Supreme Court rulings. Nationally, two thirds of states do not have any laws on the books to protect fresh water wetlands; five states have no water pollution laws at all.
Minnesota’s Wetlands Conservation Act is more restrictive than the Federal Clean Water Act and this legislation will not change that balance in our state. The Minnesota DNR will continue to have the final word on who is, or is not granted a permit. The same situation exists with the Federal Clean Air Act; again, Minnesota’s laws are tougher than the federal standards.
However, the Supreme Court rulings have added new paperwork and red-tape to the process of getting a permit. On a case-by-case basis, the Army Corps of Engineers must now determine if all wetlands applications fall under the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act before a property owner can even begin a permit application. Property owners must fill out a 12-page form while consulting an 86-page instructions booklet, and they can expect the time it takes to get a permit to be increased by up to three months. CWRA eliminates this confusing battery of paperwork.
Without CWRA we can expect to see a flurry of lawsuits. The most recent Supreme Court ruling that led to the current regulatory mess was a 4-1-4 split decision, with four justices ruling that the Clean Water Act should not cover all of our waters, and four ruling that it should. Justice Kennedy tried to compromise with his own opinion calling for the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers to find a “significant nexus” connecting the waterway to a “navigable water” before they can enforce the Clean Water Act. This is a recipe for confusion, delay, and litigation.
The campaign being waged against CWRA is based on false premises and wild speculation. Pro-industry and anti-government groups that have been opposed to any federal pollution regulation have claimed that this legislation will have the federal government harassing property owners.
CWRA also preserves the exemptions for farming, logging, mining and many other business related activities that were included in the original Clean Water Act.
My bill specifically restores the authority of the Clean Water Act. It will allow the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers to go back to the rules and guidance they have used to enforce the Clean Water Act for the last 30 years. Those rules cleaned up our rivers, streams, and lakes. They were in place during the 1990s, the longest sustained period of economic growth in our nation’s history. It’s time to put them back to work protecting our waters for our children and grandchildren.
Your vote:
No comments:
Post a Comment