[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 20]
[Senate]
[Pages 27660-27661]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                35TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today is the 35th anniversary of the 
Clean Water Act, one of this Nation's landmark environmental laws.
  Since 1972, the Clean Water Act has provided essential protection for 
our Nation's waters that enhance and contribute to human health and 
well-being, the economy, and the environment. Yet as we celebrate the 
35-year anniversary of the enactment of the Clean Water Act, Federal 
protections of surface waters that provide drinking water to an 
estimated 110 million Americans remain threatened until the U.S. 
Congress acts. Two recent U.S. Supreme Court cases have jeopardized the 
protection of these and many other of our Nation's waters by calling 
into question the Clean Water Act protections for entire categories of 
waters.
  In the 2006 consolidated cases of Rapanos v. United States and 
Carabell v. Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Supreme Court left more 
than half of our Nation's waters without Federal protections. The 
impact of that decision is compounded by the 2001 case Solid Waste 
Agency of Northern Cook County v. Army Corps of Engineers, SWANCC, in 
which the U.S. Supreme Court limited the authority of Federal agencies 
to extend Clean Water Act protections to certain wetlands traditionally 
protected based on their use by migratory birds.

[[Page 27661]]

  The implications of the recent Supreme Court decisions are disturbing 
for the safety of our drinking water, habitats for wildlife, and 
fragile ecosystems around the country. At the crux of the debate is the 
term ``navigable waters,'' which the Supreme Court used to restrict the 
scope of the Clean Water Act in ways never intended by Congress. The 
fundamental purpose of the Clean Water Act of 1972 was to protect the 
Nation's waters from pollution rather than just sustain the 
navigability of waterways.
  That is why Congress extended protections to ``waters of the United 
States,'' and the Environmental Protection Agency's and Army Corps of 
Engineers' regulations have properly established the scope of waters--
including all interstate and intrastate waters--needed to be protected 
in order to maintain the ``chemical, physical, and biological integrity 
of the Nation's waters,'' as called for in the act. This goal cannot be 
achieved if Congress does not restore protections that the Supreme 
Court stripped from 53 to 59 percent of the total length of U.S. 
streams, excluding Alaska, and at least 20 million acres of so-called 
``isolated'' wetlands in the lower 48 States, as estimated by the EPA.
  It is important to understand that though the recent court cases 
focused on dredge and fill permits under section 404, the definition of 
``waters of the United States'' is integral to the Federal Government's 
jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act as a whole. This definition is 
the linchpin for State water quality standards under Section 302 and 
Section 303, national performance standards under Section 306, toxic 
and pretreatment standards under Section 307, oil and hazardous 
substance liability under Section 311, aquaculture standards under 
Section 318, State water quality certifications under Section 401, and 
national pollution discharge permitting requirements under Section 402.
  In light of these Supreme Court decisions, Congress must reaffirm the 
original intent of the Clean Water Act and our commitment to ensuring 
that Americans have clean, safe water. The Clean Water Restoration Act, 
which I have introduced, will reestablish protection for all waters 
historically covered by the Clean Water Act. It will end the legal 
wrangling over the definition of waters protected by the original Clean 
Water Act by defining ``waters of the United States'' based on the 
longstanding definitions in EPA and U.S. Army Corps regulations.
  It is a straightforward, surgical fix. Unfortunately, special 
interest and industry groups that opposed the Clean Water Act in 1972 
are back at it again, trying to sabotage any legislation that restores 
critical clean water protections. They are making claims that ``every 
wet area'' will be regulated, which could not be further from the 
truth--from the downright silly accusation that swimming pools will be 
regulated to the flat-out incorrect accusation that ground water will 
be regulated. My legislation does not broaden the scope of the Clean 
Water Act.
  Congress should not stand aside while the courts roll back more than 
30 years of Federal protections for our waters. On the 35th anniversary 
of the enactment of the Clean Water Act, we must step in to bring 
clarity to a law left murky by the U.S. Supreme Court.

                          ____________________