|
|
||
Uncle Sam looking over your farm pond? Is that a good idea? Date published: 5/4/2010
GIVEN A CHOICE between clean Back in the early days of the environmental movement, Congress under President Nixon passed the Clean Water Act, giving the Environmental Protection Agency responsibility for cleaning up and protecting the nation's navigable waterways. Why "navigable"? Because navigable waters are ones over which commerce and trade occur, and Article I Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to "regulate Commerce among the several States ." Congress, in passing the Clean Water Act in 1972, recognized both this federal responsibility and the limits placed on Uncle Sam by the "enumerated powers" principle of constitutional law. In the decades that followed the act's passage, the Army Corps of Engineers, working with the EPA on pollution issues, began routinely claiming jurisdiction over wetlands abutting navigable waterways. In 1986, the Corps expanded its oversight to any body of water upon which a migratory bird could land. This overreach prompted a correction. Two Supreme Court decisions did just that. In a 2001 case, SWANCC vs. Army Corps of Engineers, the court said the Corps had no standing to enforce its migratory bird rule. And in Rapanos v. the U.S. Government in 2006, the court found the abutted wetlands rule to be unsupported by the law. Displeased with both decisions, Rep. Jim Oberstar, D-Minn., has introduced a bill called the Clean Water Restoration Act. He says the aim of the bill, which would remove the word "navigable" from the Clean Water Act, is to return the law to its original intent. Yet, as opponents point out, removing that one word would give the federal government jurisdiction over every stream, farm pond, swamp, and water-holding ditch in the country. Ranchers are particularly riled. Dave Scott, president of the Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association, says, "Federal jurisdiction would be brought all the way to the ranch, creating more bureaucratic government red tape, as well as expensive and unnecessary engineering and possibly even litigation." Groundwater, Mr. Scott notes, is not excluded from the bill, leaving that resource open to federal control, too. Clean water is a great boon. Those of us who live near and love the Chesapeake Bay understand that well. But we also know that expanding the powers of Washington beyond those enumerated in the Constitution is an expensive and dangerous "fix" to any problem. The simple solution: Let the states protect the nation's waters, with federal backup. State government officials have a better appreciation of local needs than Beltway bureaucrats. With research and guidelines provided by Washington, they can do a good job. If they fail, they are answering to voters. Protecting our waters is important--but so is protecting our Constitution. The Clean Water Act intentionally limited federal control to navigable waters. Steady as she goes.
Since the States have not kept their side of the bargin on what clean water is and should be, for decades, why would the States want the backing of Federal rules and regulations that the States have ignored for decades? If someone wants to hold up the health of the Chesapeake Bay and the all the water ways that lead to the Bay, next to the Constituition, which ONE should we pick? BOTH? If so, will the Constitution provide US with clean water to drink, and what State will keep its promise?
The Clean Water programs ARE delegated to the states as
long as they meeting the reporting and compliance
requirements established in the law and regulations.
The Corp by the way - is not the primary regulator when it
comes to clean water - for instance it has virtually nothing
to do with storm water runoff or NPDES permitting. This is
more anti-govt blather from those who are opposed to the
govt role in clean water to start with. They want to states to
not do what the Feds require.
|
|
|||||||||||||
