We’re going to discuss a very interesting part of the Clean Water Act that goes far beyond simple discharge effluent limits under the NPDES program. The Corps of Engineers Section 404 program impacts projects such as building a road across a stream. We’ll address just how far the federal government should go in regulating water.
Currently the Clean Water Act regulates “waters of the United States” generally defined as interstate waters (crossing state lines) and tributaries (for example, the Mississippi River, rivers that drain into the Mississippi, and streams and creeks that drain into these tributaries). It does not regulate “isolated waters” or ponds and wetlands that drain nowhere; water is retained within these spots. For isolated waters there are currently no federally required NPDES permits, no federally mandated effluent limits, and no Corps of Engineers permits for dredge or fill (there may be local or state restrictions or permits, but no federal).
The Clean Water Restoration Act was considered in Congress. It would have amended the Clean Water Act by changing the definition of “waters of the United States” to include areas that are currently not federally regulated. Proponents claim this is necessary to protect currently unprotected waters, including hundreds of thousands of acres of prairie potholes in the Northern Great Plains (called “America’s duck factory”), which have been drained and filled at an alarming rate over the past 100 years. Opponents claim this is another federal “power-grab” that would extend water regulation far beyond Congress’ original intent, and literally would result in regulating any water anywhere it fell in the United States, including in your own back yard. Some point to the Constitution, that specifically limits federal powers to “interstate commerce” (thus the connection to “interstate waters”).
So we come back to a question posed time and again: which level of government should exercise greater control, federal or state? Should local isolated waters be regulated from Washington DC or by state agencies closer to home? If the state fails to adequately protect these isolated waters, should the federal government step in? Or should the federal government keep its nose out of state business, and leave isolated waters, that do not cross state lines, under the control of the state? Should the federal government be the final authority in environmental protection, in this case, clean water? Or are they so far removed from local conditions they cannot possibly know what’s best for local citizens?
Do you believe this was a good bill that should have been supported? Why or why not? Should it be resurrected? How would this bill affect new energy development?
This discussion is tempered by your knowledge of impacts on business, jobs and livelihoods. Maybe you’re an avid duck hunter who also works for an energy company that needs to develop more transmission across the Prairie Pothole region of the Dakotas. Personal opinions and feelings translate into government policy; perception is reality, and legislators and regulators will respond to these. Although you may have a personal opinion, statements of fact about potential impacts either way must be supported by background research. Do web research on the Clean Water Restoration Act (it’s a very short bill), and on other actions where federal authority trumps state regulation. Look for and evaluate opinions pro and con. Educate yourself on this proposal.
You must cite sources that provide support for your position. Unsubstantiated opinions are a dime a dozen. Back up what you say.