By Maureen Lorenzetti
A bipartisan group of US House of Representative lawmakers called on the White House Nov. 25 to reject a pending plan by the US Environmental Protection Agency and the US Army Corps of Engineers to change federal clean water guidelines.
Agency officials have said their efforts are meant to streamline cumbersome regulations, but environmentalists and most state regulators say the proposal will limit existing safeguards to keep drinking water clean. But White House and administration officials also stress no final decision has been made whether to go through with the rule or not.
Half of the 435-member body including 26 Republicans, sent a letter to President George W. Bush urging him to reverse EPA's efforts.
The letter urges the President "not to pursue any policy or regulatory changes that would reduce the scope of waters protected under the Clean Water Act. In particular, we ask that you not amend the long-standing definition of waters as suggested by the Jan. 15, 2003 Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and that you rescind the policy guidance issued at the same time."
Letter authors said that the EPA proposal runs counter to Congress' intent because narrowing the definition of regulated water will mean increased pollution of streams, ponds, and wetlands "and, as this pollution flows downstream, greater pollution of our lakes, rivers and coastal waters."
"I was proud to play a part in enacting the Clean Water Act. Prior to that landmark legislation, rivers were catching on fire and fisherman dubbed Lake Erie the Dead Sea," said Rep. John Dingell, (D-MI), ranking Member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. "We have come too far to allow a roll-back."
"The Clean Water Act is a landmark piece of legislation which shouldn't be diluted," said Rep. Jim Saxton (R-NJ), vice chairman of the House Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans Subcommittee. "Congress has few responsibilities greater than preserving clean water for future generations, and improving the quality of water damaged by many years of neglect. I'm pleased to see a bipartisan message being made that we are unified on an issue that affects every state and every home and every citizen."
Senate Committee Seeks Stormwater Projects
As part of a pending transportation bill, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee approved a bill that could provide up to $958 million for highway storm water mitigation projects over the next six years.
The proposal offered by Sens. John Warner (R-VA) and Lincoln Chafee (R-RI) provides that about 2% of overall highway funding be spent on projects that protect water quality. Such projects include stormwater retrofits, the recharge of groundwater, natural filters, stream restoration, minimization of stream bank erosion, innovative technologies, and others. AMSA and other bill proponents cited US EPA statistics that have found that polluted stormwater from roads is a leading cause of water pollution. Roadways produce some of the highest concentrations of pollutants such as phosphorus, suspended solids, bacteria, and heavy metals.
"This is a step toward ensuring that legislation is enacted that is environmentally sound and will help protect and improve water quality nationwide. This key amendment will provide funding for the nation's clean water infrastructure, which must become a priority issue for Congress and the public in the coming years," said AMSA's Executive Director Ken Kirk.
Senate Stalls Energy Bill
US Senate Republican leaders in late November abandoned a pending energy bill opposed by many water utilities because it contained a provision that gives limited liability for the fuel additive methyl tertiary butyl ether. The chemical is used in clean fuel formulas but is extremely soluble and has contaminated some drinking water supplies, especially in the Northeast and West Coast.
The US House supports a plan to protect MTBE producers from product liability lawsuits; lawmakers from MTBE states say that leaking fuel tanks, not the MTBE itself, is to blame for water contamination and that the product is actually safer than gasoline.
But a vocal minority of senators threatened to talk the legislation to death unless the MTBE provision changed. They want to give states and local water managers the option to recover costs associated with MTBE contamination.
A provision sponsored by House Republican leaders extended a MTBE product liability waiver retroactive to Sept. 5, so that lawsuits filed on or after that date would be null and void.
A spokesperson for Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) said the senator planned to take up energy legislation again when Congress returns in January. Lawmakers are now trying to negotiate a compromise on the fuel issue; senators from the east and west coasts want MTBE banned.
Under the previous deal brokered between Republican leaders, MTBE would have been technically banned beginning in 2015 although states could still have chosen to continue using it. The measure also offered $2 billion over 8 years (at the rate of $250 million/year through fiscal years 2005-12) to provide "conversion assistance" for MTBE producers to convert their facilities to other chemicals, expected to be other fuel additive components. Legislation also authorized $3 billion over 5 years (FYs 2004-08) to allow for MTBE groundwater contamination cleanups.
Outside of MTBE, the energy bill contained other items of interest to water groups. For example, the measure included a plan to expand oil and gas drilling exemptions to federal stormwater discharge permits. Producers are already exempted from filing permits when they start drilling; under HR 6 producers could avoid permits when they are preparing the site. It is unclear if the next version of the bill will contain this provision or not.
Environmentalists unsuccessfully opposed the measure in the last Congress. They said oil and gas construction activities often trigger erosion of polluted soil that in turn creates runoff that can seriously threaten drinking water supplies.
