[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 57 (Wednesday, April 21, 2010)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E608-E609]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   INTRODUCTION OF H.R. 5088, AMERICA'S COMMITMENT TO CLEAN WATER ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. JAMES L. OBERSTAR

                              of minnesota

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, April 21, 2010

  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, today I am introducing ``America's 
Commitment to Clean Water Act,'' legislation to reaffirm the ability of 
the Clean Water Act to protect the Nation's waters, including wetlands. 
These waters support our nation's economic well-being, enable our 
quality of life, and sustain our environment for generations to come. 
Over its thirty-seven-year history, the Clean Water Act has restored 
countless rivers, lakes, and streams, protected drinking water 
supplies, and preserved water quality and water-related habitat 
essential to waterfowl, wildlife, and fisheries.
  In 1972, Congress set a goal that the Nation's waters would be 
fishable and swimmable by July 1, 1983. Great progress toward that goal 
has been made, but 40 percent of our waters still do not meet the goals 
and standards of the Act.
  In 2001 and 2006, two decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court threw the 
Nation's clean water programs into turmoil, creating confusion and 
uncertainty for communities, developers, and agricultural interests, 
and placing at risk the Nation's ability to restore, protect, and 
maintain water quality and the water-related environment.
  Turmoil, confusion, and uncertainty are no way to run a program. The 
result has been increased processing times and backlogs as the agencies 
struggle to interpret the court decisions. That is why I developed 
legislation to restore the common understanding of the scope of the 
Clean Water Act based on decades-old interpretations of the U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency.
  The bill will ensure that the Clean Water Act can cover the same 
waters as it did under the regulatory decisions in place in 2001. These 
decisions were based on a common understanding developed over the 29 
years of the Act as to defining its appropriate scope.
  By restoring the common understanding and practice of protecting the 
Nation's waters and wetlands as existed prior to 2001, we can provide 
much-needed certainty to the regulated

[[Page E609]]

community, and avoid costly litigation over responsibility for 
protecting clean water. We can also restore bedrock protections for our 
citizens and our neighborhoods from polluters who place families and 
communities at risk.
  Clean, safe water is a basic right for all Americans. Yet, unless we 
act, the Clean Water Act cannot ensure that right.
  The New York Times reports that as a result of the Supreme Court 
decisions companies have spilled oil, carcinogens and dangerous 
bacteria into lakes, rivers and other waters without being prosecuted. 
EPA regulators working on those cases, estimate that more than 1,500 
major pollution investigations have been discontinued or shelved in the 
last four years.
  Data from 2008, the most recent year available, show there were over 
20,000 beach closings and advisories that year due to pollution, and 
studies in the Great Lakes show that as many as 10 percent of 
beachgoers report getting sick after swimming in beach waters open for 
swimming.
  Drinking water protection areas that contain one or more small or 
intermittent streams that would be vulnerable to pollution under the 
Supreme Court decisions provide drinking water to more than 117,000,000 
people in the United States.
  These examples demonstrate why we must act.
  Two years ago I conducted a thorough hearing where I heard from two 
dozen witnesses on five panels of everything that was good and bad 
about my prior legislative proposal. I invited suggestions from any and 
all interested parties.
  The bill I introduce today is a new bill that responds to those 
comments. It more clearly and specifically targets its one objective--
addressing the SWANCC and Rapanos decisions, decisions I believe were 
wrongly decided.
  Among the significant changes from my earlier bill:
  To avoid the possible need for new regulations, the bill uses the 
current regulatory definition of ``waters of the United States'' to 
establish the scope of the Act.
  The bill codifies an exemption for prior converted croplands.
  The bill codifies an exemption for waste treatment systems.
  The bill explicitly states that ground water is considered separately 
from ``waters of the United States.''
  The bill explicitly states that it does not affect the authority of 
EPA or the Corps as that authority existed prior to SWANCC in 2001.
  The bill places limits on Federal jurisdiction by specifying the 
Constitutional authority for the Clean Water Act, and preserving the 
Federal/State cooperation that is the hallmark of the Act.
  The bill removes all language related to ``activities''. That term 
created unnecessary confusion on what would require a Clean Water Act 
permit. Since enactment in 1972, permits are required only for 
discharges.
  The bill preserves the exemptions, limitations, and practices under 
the Act.
  The bill includes multiple clarifying changes to emphasize that the 
bill will reaffirm and restore the original scope of the Clean Water 
Act, and not expand its geographic scope.
  Opponents of legislation to restore the Clean Water Act characterize 
the restoration as a mammoth expansion of Federal power. Restoring the 
Clean Water Act is only an expansion to the extent the Supreme Court 
ignored the intent of Congress and 30 years of precedent by narrowing 
the Act.
  Opponents argue that the Federal government should not require a 
permit for everything you do that might affect a wet area. I agree. The 
Clean Water Act never required such permits and I do not offer 
legislation that would do so.
  Simply put, if it was not regulated before 2001, it will not be 
regulated with the enactment of the legislation.
  Some people have opposed the Clean Water Act for decades, and it 
should not come as a surprise that these same groups are using recent 
Supreme Court decisions as justification to roll back protections under 
the Clean Water Act. For the sake of future generations, progress must 
not be rolled back. We must advance the cause of clean water by 
sustaining the original purpose of the Act.
  In 1972, Congress voted overwhelmingly to overturn President Nixon's 
veto of the Clean Water Act and to restore and maintain the chemical, 
physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters. Since that 
time, Americans have overwhelmingly expressed their support for 
protecting our Nation's waters and keeping them safe from polluters. 
The bill will restore America's commitment to clean water.

                          ____________________