Nothing radical about the Restoration Act by Henry VanOffelen and Janette Brimmer Appearing in The Fergus Falls Daily Journal on 2007-07-05. Fear-mongering doesn't make for sound debate on one of our nation's best laws ever: The Clean Water Act. Yet that's the route the authors of an op-ed in these pages took last week. Even these critics had to admit the 1972 Clean Water Act "was the impetus of a great American success story." This law has been such a success because it was written carefully, implemented fairly, and its results are visible for all to see. Because of the law, rivers are no longer catching fire in Cleveland, the Mississippi River running through the Twin Cities isn't spiraling downward toward toxicity, and wetland loss has slowed. The benefits to society of cleaner waters for drinking and recreation are clear, but some developers and industrial polluters who only care about their bottom lines have diligently worked to change the intent of the law. Over the last six years, they've been helped by the U.S. Supreme Court and have chipped away at the law's foundation. The court ruled the act may no longer protect numerous wetlands, streams, rivers, and lakes, potentially including smaller headwater streams that feed into larger rivers. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimated that nearly 60 percent of our nation's streams, creeks, and rivers and tens of millions of wetland acres are now at risk of losing Clean Water Act protections. Rep. Jim Oberstar of Duluth recognized the court decisions are a retreat from the original intent of the Clean Water Act and has taken action. He, and about 160 colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives, have co-sponsored the Clean Water Restoration Act. The Clean Water Restoration Act does just what its name says: it restores the original intent of the Clean Water Act so that our waters and wetlands are protected just as they were for the 30 years prior to these court decisions. There's nothing radical about it, which explains why hunting, fishing, and conservation groups have embraced it. Although the attackers of this proposed law want to scare you into believing it will grant the government unprecedented regulatory authority, this bill will not regulate "literally all wet areas in the United States," as the critics tried to claim last week. The Clean Water Act never did that before and it won't under Oberstar's proposal. Indeed, the act is expected to actually cut government red tape because the court decisions left everything muddled. Don't fall for the fear-mongers' arguments. Urge Congress to pass the Clean Water Restoration Act so our children can enjoy the same, or better, water quality we have today. Henry VanOffelen, Detroit Lakes Natural Resource Scientist Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy Janette Brimmer, St. Paul Legal Director Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy

  Back to news