Oberstar bill sparks anti-fed fears by Marshall Helmberger Appearing in The Timber Jay on 2007-09-21. To critics, Congressman Jim Oberstar’s effort to revise the 1972 Clean Water Act amounts to the biggest federal power grab in American history. To supporters, it simply clarifies one of the most politically-popular laws ever enacted by Congress. Such stark political divisions aren’t unusual, but the rhetoric being used to describe the Clean Water Restoration Act, now before Congress, has cast Oberstar as an unlikely villian in what some are calling an effort to control virtually every aspect of Americans’ lives. “Under the guise of clean water and environmental protection, this bill, if passed, would give the federal government control over virtually any significant type of human activity,” says Don Parmeter, a longtime critic of federal environmental regulations and the current director of the St. Paul-based American Property Coalition. Parmeter calls the bill the most extreme proposal he has seen in his 30-year career. Critics have charged that the measure will send legions of federal bureaucrats out combing the countryside to regulate not only industry, but logging activities, farms, and even backyard swimming pools and hot tubs. Such a reaction has baffled supporters, including Oberstar aide John Schadl, who has been monitoring the rumblings over the proposed legislation for more than a year. He dismissed much of the rhetoric coming from critics as “silly,” but that hasn’t stopped him from trying to head off any political fallout from the charges they’ve leveled. Court rulings prompted legislation The Clean Water Act was passed by Congress and signed by President Richard Nixon in 1972, marking a watershed event in American environmental history. Oberstar, who was an aide to Clean Water Act co-sponsor John Blatnik at the time, said there was no question then that the law was supposed to protect all the waters within U.S. boundaries from pollution and other damage. And for more than 30 years, federal regulatory agencies—under five presidents, both Democrat and Republican—and the courts interpreted the law that way. But two recent decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court have muddied the waters, according to Schadl, by suggesting that the authority of the landmark federal law was limited to “navigable waters.” Such a narrow interpretation, which was accepted by only a plurality of the court, would significantly undermine the protections that most Americans have come to take for granted, according to Janette Brimmer, legal director for the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy. “Are streams that form the headwaters of the Mississippi protected from pollution? Most people would probably assume that they are, but what if they aren’t considered navigable?” asks Brimmer. Oberstar and many other congressmen were concerned that the Supreme Court rulings in two specific cases had undermined the original intent of Congress and Oberstar responded with the Clean Water Restoration Act, legislation that has already attracted 168 co-sponsors in the House. Oberstar held hearings on the measure in Washington in July, but the hearings garnered little press attention. In testimony to Congress on the issue, Gov. Tim Pawlenty expressed support for the goals of the legislation, but encouraged lawmakers to make sure that state and local authority isn’t undermined by the measure. Opponents represent mixed company Some of the criticism of the bill is coming from groups with political or anti-government agendas. Linda Runbeck, the president of the American Property Coalition, helped manage Rod Grams’ campaign to unseat Oberstar in 2006. “This was one of the signature issues of their campaign,” noted Schadl. And the American Property Coalition has taken other positions that aren’t well accepted in the mainstream. Their website, for example, currently promotes speakers and theories that describe global warming concerns as “alarmist.” Even so, critics of Oberstar’s legislation include major organizations, such as the National Association of Counties. The NACo’s Associate Executive Director Julie Ufner states that the new law would unleash a torrent of new regulations and unfunded mandates on local governments, by requiring Clean Water Act permitting for projects that weren’t affected by the original law. Ufner also says Oberstar’s proposed legislation would expand regulation to “activities affecting those waters,” language that she says wasn’t included in the original Clean Water Act. Schadl said many county officials are supportive of the provision, but he acknowledged some have expressed concerns that the new law could overreach. “We have asked them to provide us with alternative language to address their concerns,” said Schadl. “We haven’t gotten any response.” Schadl said some of the pushback is coming from groups that never supported the Clean Water Act in the first place. “This is really an attempt to turn the clock back on the Clean Water Act. Some of these people are opposed to the federal governnment being involved in clean water period,” he added. Schadl said Oberstar isn’t interested in the kind of federal micromanagement that critics fear. “The initial clean water act was careful to make sure that industry could operate, and we’re making sure all those provisions remain in place,” Schadl said. The legislation does specifically exempt a number of activities from regulation, including most farming, logging, and mining activities. “We’re not trying to re-invent the wheel,” said Schadl. “There is 35 years of regulatory practice and authority behind this law. We’re just continuing what worked for 35 years.” Linda Runbeck did not return a call seeking comment for this story.

  Back to news