[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 112 (Friday, August 3, 2001)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1549]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    CLEAN WATER USERS PROTECTION ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                       HON. C.L. ``BUTCH'' OTTER

                                of idaho

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, August 2, 2001

  Mr. OTTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the ``Clean Water 
Users Protection Act.'' This bill provides that plaintiffs under the 
Clean Water Act must post a bond for their opponents' legal fees before 
filing a case. Ordinary farmers, small businessmen, rural counties and 
school districts have all become targets for zealots who place their 
own interpretation of the law before the interests of rural America. My 
act will ensure that only legitimate lawsuits are brought under the 
Clean Water Act.
  Congress established Clean Water Act citizen suits in the 1970's to 
ensure that each citizen would have a voice in making sure that our 
environment remained clean. Unfortunately, the process was corrupted by 
those who want to destroy private enterprise and line their pockets in 
the process. The Talent Irrigation District is a perfect example. In 
that case a radical environmental group challenged a commonly used, 
federally regulated herbicide as violating the Clean Water Act. A lower 
court rejected their suit, and rightfully so. The 9th Circuit Court 
ruled, against nearly 30 years of precedent to the contrary, that 
aquatic herbicides are also covered by the Clean Water Act. Every 
irrigator in the United States now faces the prospect of losing their 
farms or going to jail. Had the plaintiff in the case been forced to 
post a bond, perhaps they would have thought twice before filing their 
suit.
  The Clean Water Users Protection Act does not change any obligation 
under the Clean Water Act. It does not reduce the remediation and/or 
penalties that can be ordered if violations of the Clean Water Act are 
found. It will, however, reduce the incentives for frivolous suits to 
be filed. It will restrain the impulse for mercenary lawyers to set up 
shop in the guise of caring for the environment. The Sacramento Bee 
recently ran a series of articles about the immense amounts of money 
that flow into the pockets of lawyers performing such ``citizen-
suits.'' They reported that the government paid out $31.6 million in 
plaintiffs attorneys fees for 434 environmental cases during the 
1990's. Businesses, farmers, and local governments have paid an untold 
amount more. My bill will stop the flow of dollars away from 
environmental protection and into lawyers pockets while protecting the 
honest men and women who live in, care for, and make their living from 
the beautiful Western states we call home.

                          ____________________