[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 23 (Tuesday, February 28, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1531-S1532]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CLEAN WATER AUTHORITY RESTORATION ACT
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, for the last 33 years, the American
people have relied upon the Clean Water Act to protect and restore the
health of the Nation's waters. The primary goal of the act to make
rivers, streams, wetlands, lakes, and coastal waters safe for fishing,
swimming and other recreation, suitable for our drinking water supply,
and available for wildlife and fish habitat--has become accepted by the
public not only as a worthy endeavor but also as a fundamental
expectation of government providing for its citizens. It is our
responsibility to provide adequate protection to ensure that our
freshwater resources are able to enhance human health, contribute to
the economy, and help the environment.
Despite being one of our Nation's bedrock environmental laws, the
Clean Water Act faces new and unprecedented challenges.
The Supreme Court recently heard two Clean Water Act cases, the
outcome of which will have significant implications for Federal efforts
to protect the Nation's waters from pollution and destruction.
Fortunately, an unprecedented array of local, State, regional, and
national officials, professional organizations, and public interest
groups from across the country and the political spectrum have joined
in the defense of the Clean Water Act. The unparalleled collection of
interested parties includes the attorneys general of 33 States plus the
District of Columbia; four former Administrators of the Environmental
Protection Agency--Russell Train, Douglas Costle, William Reilly, and
Carol Browner; nine current and former members of the U.S. Senate and
U.S. House of Representatives who were directly involved in the passage
of the 1972 Act and its reaffirmation in 1977; the Association of State
Wetlands Managers, the Association of State Floodplain Managers, the
Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control
Administrators, and the International Association of Fish and Wildlife
Agencies; numerous hunting, fishing, wildlife and outdoor recreation
organizations and businesses, including Ducks Unlimited, the National
Wildlife Federation, Trout Unlimited, the American Sportsfishing
Association, Bass Pro Shops, the Orvis Company, and the Wildlife
Management Institute, among others; and a number of local, regional,
and national environmental groups. All of these interests filed briefs
expressing strong support of the Clean Water Act's core safeguard: the
requirement to obtain a permit before discharging pollutants into
waters of the United States.
With such strong support for the Clean Water Act, which is grounded
in the language, history, and purpose of the law itself, I hope that
the Supreme Court will follow its own precedent and reaffirm Federal
protections for streams, headwaters, tributaries, and wetlands that
have long been covered by the Act.
Whatever the outcome of these critical cases, Congress must reaffirm
the historical scope of the Clean Water Act. The best way to do this is
through passage of the Clean Water Authority Restoration Act, S. 912.
This bill simply confirms that the Act has always covered all of these
waters, consistent with Congress's clear intent, by codifying the
regulatory definition of ``waters of the United States'' that has been
in use since 1973.
[[Page S1532]]
The bill addresses protections for certain so-called isolated streams
and wetlands in the wake of the Supreme Court's 2001 decision in Solid
Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. Army Corps of Engineers and
will help to ward off any future legal challenges to the scope of the
act.
Our Nation's streams, ponds, isolated wetlands, and other bodies of
water are too important to not take action to protect them. We owe
future generations nothing less than healthy waters.
____________________