Waters Advocacy Coalition

One Word Holds the Power

Navigable Waters vs. All Waters has set states in motion

It’s simple semantics: by changing the definition of one word in a sentence, the whole meaning can take new life. 

Debate in Congress over the Clean Water Restoration Act (CWRA) is no different .  Do you or do you not remove “navigable” from the original Clean Water Act and replace it with “all” ?  Twenty-five years ago the Supreme Court  recognized the term as including waters beyond where navigation actually occurs.  Yet now some urge changing the Clean Water Act through the CWRA.  These proponents say that this legislation will only “clarify” the Clean Water Act; however, the CWRA would actually expand federal power, granting Washington – not individual states and local communities – jurisdiction over “all” waters.

Since the ordinary meaning of the word “all” is “every,” “as much as possible,” or “every member or individual component,” changing the Clean Water Act in this manner could have huge implications for landowners, businesses, and local communities throughout the nation. Because courts could direct the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to follow the plain language of the statute, this legislation could extend the federal government’s reach by directing the federal government to regulate all water located in each state, as well as all interstate waters.

But fortunately for us, several states are becoming increasingly vocal on the CWRA and are taking strides to educate local communities on the potentially negative effects changing one word would have on their businesses, communities and economies overall.  Let’s look back on some recent responses to this possible change in legislation, and the concerns being voiced by legislators across the nation:

Colorado

Back in mid-December, CO State Sen. Ken Kester told Washington, DC thanks, but no thanks, in an op-ed placed to The Denver Post.  “Colorado has some of the strongest, most effective water and land use preservation and protection regulations and laws in the nation,” Kester said.  “Why are some in Washington so concerned about whether states like ours have the talent, treasure and technology in place to do a job we’ve effectively done for more than 100 years?” 

Thanks to government entities such as the Colorado Division of Water Resources and non-governmental watchdogs like the Central Colorado Water Conservancy District, the state has substantial oversight in place to protect its own waterways using the people who are best suited to address water concerns in the state. 

Montana

State Rep. Russell Bean echoed Sen. Kester’s sentiments in an op-ed of his own, seen in The Great Falls Tribune in January.  “The federal government is significantly expanding its authority into several industries, and as Washington increases its authority, the rights of citizens and states continue to dwindle,” he says.  As a state reliant on successful farming, Bean explains, “Under the CWRA, something as simple as a farmer or rancher filling a ditch on private property could require a federal permit that could take years to get approved and cost thousands of dollars.” 

Texas

Recently State Representative Bill Callegari added to this drumbeat by posting this opinion column online, titled “Washington Shouldn’t Mess with Texas’ Water.” In this blog post, Callegari states: “Texas has a sovereign right, reinforced by more than a century’s worth of sound public policy, over the management and control its water resources…Unfortunately, several proposals percolating in Washington to expand federal authority over this nation’s waters threaten Texas’ right to manage and control its own water resources. The most immediate threat is entitled the Clean Water Restoration Act. The title of this bill is misleading: rather than “restore” the Clean Water Act, the bill does everything to expand it.”

Idaho

As of early March, the Idaho Senate has approved legislation that addresses their concerns with the CWRA.  State Sen. Steve Bair voiced how changes made to the Clean Water Act could negatively impact the nation, and particularly his home state:

“It would be a financial burden on the state, one we can’t afford,” he said. “This could possibly be imposed on ditches and canals … That could affect agriculture adversely.”

Now is time for Americans to stand up together to protect our environment, economy and states’ rights. It is clear that as states learn more about the CWRA, they are responding loudly: the Clean Water Act should be preserved in its current form. It is obvious that states – not Washington bureaucrats – are best suited to regulate and control local water permitting and authority.