Waters Advocacy Coalition

Richmond Times-Dispatch: Keep the Wording Of Clean Water Act

From the Richmond Times-Dispatch(March 7):

Editor, Times-Dispatch: As the federal government continues to expand its authority into new areas, including the automotive, banking, and health care industries, the rights and opportunities of states and their citizens continue to dwindle.

Congress is considering a bill that would limit Virginia’s authority to continue working with the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers to manage our state’s water resources.

The Clean Water Restoration Act would remove the word “navigable” from the text of the Clean Water Act, giving the federal government authority over all U.S. waters. This seemingly minor change would drastically expand the government’s power and usurp authority from local, community, and state officials.

A one-size-fits-all approach that hands over power to distant federal bureaucrats would be a huge step in the wrong direction and would do little to ensure our nation’s water are clean, safe, secure, and protected.

The unintended consequences associated with this bill are many and would dramatically and adversely affect states, local governments, family farms, and private property owners in managing our water resources. Virginia would be negatively impacted by this legislation.

Virginia has demonstrated a strong capability to maintain and protect our waters. The state goes above and beyond federal water requirements in managing all of our wetlands and water. In fact, the state has more than 20 programs to monitor, assess, and improve waterways. Local and state officials aggressively enforce state environmental laws protecting resources.

The existing Clean Water Act is a commonsense law that has fostered a strong, working federal-state partnership and continues to improve America’s water quality and our environment. Leave current legislation alone. It allows state and federal governments to work together.

I urge Virginia’s congressional delegation to work to protect our state from this burdensome and intrusive expansion of federal authority.

Matthew Lohmann.
Clarke.

NAM on CWRA: A Watery, Regulatory Grave for Ownership Rights

Today the National Association of Manufacturers wrote about their concerns with the Clean Water Restoration Act through the following blog entry:  

In a column today, “Erosion of ownership rights,” Quin Hillyer of The Washington Times identifies six different fronts (at least) where property rights are under assault. His first example has drawn outrage and opposition in farm country, but it’s worth attention from manufacturers and other business owners, too:

First, consider the moves in Congress to extend federal regulatory jurisdiction from “navigable” waters to “all interstate and intrastate waters of the United States.” Suddenly, if the so-called Clean Water Restoration Act passes, your backyard fish pond could be subject to the dictates of commissars from the Environmental Protection Agency. (See editorial on facing page.)

Enactment of the CWRA would surely spur massive court fights. The CWRA’s regulatory overreach would, by all logic, run afoul of the Constitution’s “interstate commerce clause.” How an “intrastate” water of the sort affected by this bill would qualify as “interstate” commerce is beyond normal reasoning.

In a speech to the State Chamber of Oklahoma on Thursday, NAM President John Engler also mentioned the legislation. From his prepared remarks*:

Since I mention the Clean Water Act, there’s also a bill that has already passed a Senate Committee that would drop the “navigable” to describe the bodies of water covered under the 1972 law. So the EPA would expand its regulatory authority to take over stock ponds, creeks, and perhaps even where water collects off the downspout from your warehouse.

Try to picture Oklahoma’s first settlers building the American dream under those conditions: 160 acres of land, a mule, and an EPA official hanging on the fence….and a fellow from the Corps of Engineers coming up over the rise.

The bill is S. 787 sponsored by Sen. Russell Feingold (D-WI).

* We now find out that Engler did not use the mule imagery. Poor mules. Always left out in the field.

NSSGA Agrees: U.S. Cannot Afford a Broad Federal Expansion of the Clean Water Act

America’s quality of life depends on stone, sand and gravel; for these simple ingredients are the building blocks of the nation’s built environment.  There are 100,000 men and women working in more than 10,000 quarries nationwide to produce the aggregate American needs.  In years past nearly 3 billion tons of crushed stone, sand and gravel were produced annually to meet the need of our customers across America.

Our industry digs holes. Big holes. When it rains, water will find a way into these holes and our members work hard to manage the water on our property and make use of it so as to be good stewards of the environment, a good neighbor and to meet the needs of our customers.  We will construct temporary retention ponds in areas where they would not normally occur to collect rainwater.  We recycle from these man-made ponds:   we draw water to wet down the property to reduce dust and to wash truck wheels to get rid of pebbles before trucks leave our property and travel on community roads.  We also use the water to wash rock so that the cement or asphalt will stick to it better.  After all, 80% of concrete and 94% of asphalt is stone, sand and gravel.  Unfortunately, the Clean Water Restoration Act would likely make these activities illegal unless we enter into an expensive and time-consuming permitting process.   

Some in Congress are considering a radical plan that will expand the power of the Clean Water Act by removing the term ‘navigable’ from the landmark law and redefining federal jurisdiction as “all intrastate and interstate waters and their tributaries.”  The key word is all.  Unfortunately, this broad expansion of federal jurisdictiondoes not differentiate between a man-made rock-washing pond in the middle of an active quarry and a river or major waterbody that is scientifically beneficial to the environment, helps with flood control, or provides habitat for animals, fish, flora and fauna.  Navigable rivers/waterbodies are the business of the federal government rather than state, local or private decision-makers.

Making a man-made rock-washing pond federal jurisdiction is an expensive proposition.  In 2002, a study found that an average individual Section 404 permit that our members would need to continue operating costs over $270,000 and takes more than 2 years to obtain. 

Simple math – 10,000 operations seeking just one $270,000 permit means the aggregate industry alone is facing a $2.7 billion fee to continue operating and years of delays.  And, it is very likely that multiple permits would be necessary to continue operating under the proposed legislation.  The only people served by this are the environmental lawyers necessary to fill out the confusing federal forms.  Without the federal permits quarry operators could face jail time for washing rock in ponds they built by harnessing the rain. 

Where do aggregates go?

Average home requires 400 tons

Average school requires 15,000 tons

One mile of highway requires 38,000 tons

Currently, aggregate operations are permitted by local and state governments and get their social license to operate from the surrounding community.   If this legislation becomes law, however, quarry owners will likely be required to get multiple costly federal permits to simply continue operating, adding another layer of regulation on an industry already regulated at the local, state and federal level.

During this time of economic turmoil, the aggregate industry is on track to see a decrease in production of over 20% this year.  That is on top of a decrease in production over the last two years.  Our companies are struggling to hang onto their employees in hopes that the economy turns around soon.  If additional expensive permits are required to continue operating, some quarries may end up shuttering for good.  For employees of quarries and their families, the prospects are truly worrisome.

We all want cleaner water for the next generation.  Let’s not act so hastily, however, that we inadvertently throw out a good lawand replace it with one that doesn’t differentiate between a man-made rock-washing pond and a navigable waterbody that is of national concern due to how it helps the environment, flood control, or the habitat it provides for animals, fish, flora or fauna.