anti-Clean Water Act passes House
Go fishing. Go for a float trip. Drink a big glass of water.
Enjoy America’s water now, because a bi-partisan bill quickly making its way through congress will cut big holes in the safety net that protects our water, said the Environmental Protection Agency. But lawmakers said the reduction in restrictions fosters the growth of industry and increases states’ autonomy.
The Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act of 2011, H.R. 2018, was introduced in late May by John L. Mica (R-FL) with Nick J. Rahall (D-WV), Gibbs (R-OH) and Shelly Moore Capito (R-WV) as key legislators who co-sponsored the bill.
It recently passed the House and will be moving on to the Senate. The Act limits the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to enforce national water quality standards. The bill passed through mark-up by the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on Wednesday with only minor addendums.
According to the House of Representative’s Transportation and Infrastructure Committee’s website:
H.R. 2018 provides common sense protections for states’ EPA-approved water quality standards and permitting authority under the CWA [Clean Water Act]. Without these protections, state regulation, as approved by EPA, can still be usurped by the agency at every turn, creating a climate for regulatory uncertainty and endless delays.
--State Water Quality Standards: Restricts EPA’s ability to issue a revised or new water quality standard for a pollutant whenever a state has adopted - and EPA has already approved - a standard, unless the state concurs.
--State Section 401 Water Quality Certification: Prohibits EPA from superseding a water quality certification (that a discharge will comply with applicable water quality requirements) granted by a state under CWA section 401.
--Approval of State NPDES Permit Program Authority: Prohibits EPA from withdrawing approval of a state water quality permitting program under CWA section 402 (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, or NPDES), or from limiting federal financial assistance for the state program, on the basis that EPA disagrees with the state regarding a (i) water quality standard that a state has adopted and EPA has approved, or (ii) the implementation of any federal guidance that directs a re-interpretation of the state’s approved water quality standards.
--EPA Veto Authority over State NPDES Permitting Decisions: Prohibits EPA from objecting to a state’s issuance of an NPDES permit on the basis of (i) EPA’s differing interpretation of an approved state water quality standard, or (ii) the implementation of any federal guidance that directs a re-interpretation of the state’s approved water quality standards.
The Natural Resources Defense Council summarized H.R. 2018 using different wording:
--Limits EPA’s ability to effectively implement or make necessary improvements to state water quality standards to deal with modern pollution challenges.
Prevents EPA from improving numeric criteria for pollutants that have led to dead zones in the Chesapeake Bay and Gulf of Mexico.
--Restricts EPA from upgrading standards for toxic pollutants where narrative standards only provide very limited protection (a common example being state standards that prohibit the “discharge of toxic pollutants in toxic amounts”).
--Prevents EPA from vetoing state-issued Clean Water Act permits even if EPA concludes those permits are not protective of water quality.
--Blocks EPA’s ability to withhold federal funding to states even if EPA determines the state’s implementation of water quality standards is not protective of water quality.
If you read both summaries carefully, you can find essentially the same information in both of them, but framed very differently. The commentary that accompanies the summaries is also very different.
“H.R. 2018 removes one of the biggest stumbling blocks to American job creation - the EPA’s ability to coerce and undermine state permitting programs,” said Bob Gibbs (R-OH) on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee’s website.
“This legislation preserves the states’ role in their partnership with the federal EPA and restores their responsibilities to ensure that clean water goals are met. While America is experiencing a severe deficit of jobs and economic stability, this improved cooperation will provide businesses with the confidence they need to create jobs,” Gibbs added.
Steve Fleischili, writing on the Natural Resource Defense Council’s website, doesn’t agree with Gibb’s analysis of the bill. He takes the stance that the potential for contamination of the American people’s water is more important than the profitability of industry.
“Basically, H.R. 2018 takes the “federal” out of the federal Clean Water Act and highlights a new disdain for the federal government’s role in environmental protection. Yet it is this federal law and EPA’s oversight that have resulted in so many improvements to water quality across America since the Clean Water Act’s passage in 1972,” said Fleischili.
“The federal Clean Water Act provides a safety net for waterways across the country…the Clean Water Act is designed to prevent a “race to the bottom” in places where the benefits of clean water may be ignored for short term economic or political gain,” said Fleischili.
“I say this is the worst attack on the Clean Water Act in at least 15 years,” concluded Fleishili, comparing H.R. 2018 to the so-called Dirty Water Bill of 1995.
On their website, the EPA explains how they believe the bill would deeply undermine federal ability to protect America's water.
"H.R. 2018 could limit efforts to safeguard communities by removing the Federal Government’s authority to take action when State water quality standards are not protective of public health," said a statement on the EPA website.
"In addition, it would restrict EPA’s authority to take action when it finds that a State’s CWA permit or permit program is inadequate and would shorten EPA’s review and collaboration with the Army Corps of Engineers on permits for dredged or fill material," said the EPA's Office of Management and Budget.
"All of these changes could result in adverse impacts to human health, the economy, and the environment through increased pollution and degradation of water bodies that serve as venues for recreation and tourism, and that provide drinking water sources and habitat for fish and wildlife," said the EPA.
Source
I'm not so sure about the "making jobs" thing, but I do know that the Clean Water Act is incredibly important. Municipal water gets tested every day for pollutants (and cleaned), the list of which is not small. (Feces, waste, chemicals, pharmaceuticals, microorganisms-- and actually, the #1 pollutant of water is sediment.) Another article mentioned that two of the representatives who introduced this have specific concerns; in Virginia (West Virginia? sorry I can't recall precisely), the repeal of a permit for a cut-top mining operation, and in Florida, tighter regulation on nutrient pollution (which I'm guessing is agricultural, a.k.a. nitrogen in fertilizers and such). The whole thing rather gives me a skeevy feeling.
Enjoy America’s water now, because a bi-partisan bill quickly making its way through congress will cut big holes in the safety net that protects our water, said the Environmental Protection Agency. But lawmakers said the reduction in restrictions fosters the growth of industry and increases states’ autonomy.
The Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act of 2011, H.R. 2018, was introduced in late May by John L. Mica (R-FL) with Nick J. Rahall (D-WV), Gibbs (R-OH) and Shelly Moore Capito (R-WV) as key legislators who co-sponsored the bill.
It recently passed the House and will be moving on to the Senate. The Act limits the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to enforce national water quality standards. The bill passed through mark-up by the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on Wednesday with only minor addendums.
According to the House of Representative’s Transportation and Infrastructure Committee’s website:
H.R. 2018 provides common sense protections for states’ EPA-approved water quality standards and permitting authority under the CWA [Clean Water Act]. Without these protections, state regulation, as approved by EPA, can still be usurped by the agency at every turn, creating a climate for regulatory uncertainty and endless delays.
--State Water Quality Standards: Restricts EPA’s ability to issue a revised or new water quality standard for a pollutant whenever a state has adopted - and EPA has already approved - a standard, unless the state concurs.
--State Section 401 Water Quality Certification: Prohibits EPA from superseding a water quality certification (that a discharge will comply with applicable water quality requirements) granted by a state under CWA section 401.
--Approval of State NPDES Permit Program Authority: Prohibits EPA from withdrawing approval of a state water quality permitting program under CWA section 402 (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, or NPDES), or from limiting federal financial assistance for the state program, on the basis that EPA disagrees with the state regarding a (i) water quality standard that a state has adopted and EPA has approved, or (ii) the implementation of any federal guidance that directs a re-interpretation of the state’s approved water quality standards.
--EPA Veto Authority over State NPDES Permitting Decisions: Prohibits EPA from objecting to a state’s issuance of an NPDES permit on the basis of (i) EPA’s differing interpretation of an approved state water quality standard, or (ii) the implementation of any federal guidance that directs a re-interpretation of the state’s approved water quality standards.
The Natural Resources Defense Council summarized H.R. 2018 using different wording:
--Limits EPA’s ability to effectively implement or make necessary improvements to state water quality standards to deal with modern pollution challenges.
Prevents EPA from improving numeric criteria for pollutants that have led to dead zones in the Chesapeake Bay and Gulf of Mexico.
--Restricts EPA from upgrading standards for toxic pollutants where narrative standards only provide very limited protection (a common example being state standards that prohibit the “discharge of toxic pollutants in toxic amounts”).
--Prevents EPA from vetoing state-issued Clean Water Act permits even if EPA concludes those permits are not protective of water quality.
--Blocks EPA’s ability to withhold federal funding to states even if EPA determines the state’s implementation of water quality standards is not protective of water quality.
If you read both summaries carefully, you can find essentially the same information in both of them, but framed very differently. The commentary that accompanies the summaries is also very different.
“H.R. 2018 removes one of the biggest stumbling blocks to American job creation - the EPA’s ability to coerce and undermine state permitting programs,” said Bob Gibbs (R-OH) on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee’s website.
“This legislation preserves the states’ role in their partnership with the federal EPA and restores their responsibilities to ensure that clean water goals are met. While America is experiencing a severe deficit of jobs and economic stability, this improved cooperation will provide businesses with the confidence they need to create jobs,” Gibbs added.
Steve Fleischili, writing on the Natural Resource Defense Council’s website, doesn’t agree with Gibb’s analysis of the bill. He takes the stance that the potential for contamination of the American people’s water is more important than the profitability of industry.
“Basically, H.R. 2018 takes the “federal” out of the federal Clean Water Act and highlights a new disdain for the federal government’s role in environmental protection. Yet it is this federal law and EPA’s oversight that have resulted in so many improvements to water quality across America since the Clean Water Act’s passage in 1972,” said Fleischili.
“The federal Clean Water Act provides a safety net for waterways across the country…the Clean Water Act is designed to prevent a “race to the bottom” in places where the benefits of clean water may be ignored for short term economic or political gain,” said Fleischili.
“I say this is the worst attack on the Clean Water Act in at least 15 years,” concluded Fleishili, comparing H.R. 2018 to the so-called Dirty Water Bill of 1995.
On their website, the EPA explains how they believe the bill would deeply undermine federal ability to protect America's water.
"H.R. 2018 could limit efforts to safeguard communities by removing the Federal Government’s authority to take action when State water quality standards are not protective of public health," said a statement on the EPA website.
"In addition, it would restrict EPA’s authority to take action when it finds that a State’s CWA permit or permit program is inadequate and would shorten EPA’s review and collaboration with the Army Corps of Engineers on permits for dredged or fill material," said the EPA's Office of Management and Budget.
"All of these changes could result in adverse impacts to human health, the economy, and the environment through increased pollution and degradation of water bodies that serve as venues for recreation and tourism, and that provide drinking water sources and habitat for fish and wildlife," said the EPA.
Source
I'm not so sure about the "making jobs" thing, but I do know that the Clean Water Act is incredibly important. Municipal water gets tested every day for pollutants (and cleaned), the list of which is not small. (Feces, waste, chemicals, pharmaceuticals, microorganisms-- and actually, the #1 pollutant of water is sediment.) Another article mentioned that two of the representatives who introduced this have specific concerns; in Virginia (West Virginia? sorry I can't recall precisely), the repeal of a permit for a cut-top mining operation, and in Florida, tighter regulation on nutrient pollution (which I'm guessing is agricultural, a.k.a. nitrogen in fertilizers and such). The whole thing rather gives me a skeevy feeling.