Hitting the wire on Thursday

From http://feingold.senate.gov/

Washington, D.C. – Today the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee passed an amended version of Senator Russ Feingold’s legislation to protect our nation’s waters. Senator Feingold released the following statement as the Clean Water Restoration Act (CWRA, S. 787) now heads to the Senate floor.

In May, the Obama administration wrote to Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman Barbara Boxer on the administration’s view that because recent Supreme Court decisions have "narrowed the prior interpretation of the scope of waters protected by the Clean Water Act”, “a clear statement of Congressional intent is needed to provide a foundation for steady and predictable implementation of the Clean Water Act.” Feingold’s Clean Water Restoration Act would provide that foundation. The CWRA is cosponsored by 24 senators and has received broad support from governors, attorneys general, farming groups, hunting and fishing groups, conservation organizations and others who recognize the great danger of removing protections for our waters and wetlands, as granted by the Clean Water Act of 1972.

A snip it form the bill

DEFINITION OF WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES

Waters of the United States
In general-The term 'waters of the United States' means all waters subject to
the ebb and flow of the tide, the territorinl seas, and all interstate and intrastate waters, including lakes, river's, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands,
sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, and natural ponds, all tributaries of any
of the above waters, and all impoundments of the forgoing.

From the National Wildlife Federation
http://www.nwf.org/news/story....C8F-AB368E5E8B22FF6F

For those that oppose it enjoy Senate Inhofe's You tube opposition
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9IT5sz2aQY


Nice place to keep track of the bill, but the have yet to update for the passing as ammended.

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s787/show

From the post, there was a snipit that was not included in the definition that may spark some interest from the masses...

" ...to the fullest extent that these waters, or activities affecting them, are subject to the legislative power of Congress under the Constitution."

Does this not still resolve the issue between the nexus to interstate commerce and how that is tied to the Constitution?

There is a good probability that the Obama Administration and congressional Democrats will not pass any environmental legislation this year.

It is my understanding that the GOP will attempt to block the CWRA from coming to the floor of the Senate for debate and a vote.

Apparently, it takes 60 votes to get a bill to the floor and there are some Democrats who object to the CWRA in its present form. If the Republicans remain united then the CWRA will probably die.

Republicans have stalled climate change legislation (cap & trade) and they should be able to stall the CWRA.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Johnny Stevens,

That would be a real shame.

Dave,

Maybe someone would care to tell us what exactly "... to the fullest extent that these waters, or activities affecting them, are subject to the legislative power of Congress under the Constitution.", means...exactly? Sounds about as definitive as "waters of the United States".

Tommy,

Yes. It certainly would be a shame if we get another ill-defined, over-reaching piece of legislation from Congress.

I doubt it would be worse than ill defined over reaching "legislation" from the judicial bench like we got with Rapanos.

Rapanos was a failed attempt to undo over-reaching bureaucratic/judicial "legislation". Unfortunately, it ended-up pretty ill-defined.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Matt Reed,

Will "...to the fullest extent that these waters, or activities affecting them, are subject to the legislative power of Congress under the Constitution" be shortened to "Constitutionally Jurisdictional Waters"

It seems as if Constitutionally Jurisdictional Waters will get us back to SWANCC limits after many court battles.

But is something better then nothing?

If you read the plethora of court cases out there in lower courts and even the new ruling for the SCOUS on a mine in Alaska, the result is the blur of any line into a "reach as far as you can biologically defend". It is clear that the EPA and some Corps offices have now pushed jurisdiction back to pre SWANCC and in some cases to the drainage path of a backyard down spout all under "significant" Others are pulling the plug and calling nothing beyond a reasonable reach to tide jurisdictional with no environmental opposition. I agree that the states (some) fell short in picking up where federal fell short, such as in South Carolina where if the Feds don’t claim it, the state can’t regulate it.

Clarity will never happen, and the Corps will always just issue permits. It is just a mater of where and to what extent the paper work debacle bogs down that permit.

Eric,
I agree that something is better than the current paper work shuffle. But, if the goal of the law is to clearly identify which waters are regulated under the clean water act, the law should identify which waters are regulated, and not just say “… and what ever else we can get away with regulating.”

As Dave Young said above, this does not address the limits on federal power imposed by the commerce clause of the constitution.

My point exactly -- what's the purpose of drafting new regulations when it's only going to result in it being challenged in court and the arguments will be based on the commerce clause. In essence, we'll be right back in the mess where we are at right now.

So -- instead of trying to dance around the problem -- let's work the problem.

Dave, we agree! Now, which way do we work the problem? Do we want congress to: A) eliminate or bypass the commerce clause, or B) simply state which waters are regulated given the limitations of the commerce clause in the constitution that limits federal power over internal matters of states?

Dave said,

“...So -- instead of trying to dance around the problem -- let's work the problem...”

Dear Dave,
Many people in the regulated community support the status quo and do not view the current law governing CWA jurisdiction as a problem.

Since Rapanos, life has been better for the regulated community who welcome the new found respect for old fashion property rights. They do not want a return to the old days when our Constitution was ignored and federal regulators could take private property without paying for it, and the regulated public had no practicable recourse.

Now that property owners have regained some of their rights, it is doubtful they would give up these rights without a long hard fight.

Andrew -- clearer definition of jurisdiction or B.

I would think if the states don't want do protect their own resources, then perhaps regional approaches to jurisdiction, similar to what the Corps did with the 87 Manual, could be accomplished. Besides it being based on science, of course, it could be indirectly crafted to take into account political nuances and sensitivies in certain regions, e.g. frontier states that are sensitive on property rights or states that need certain activities to occur in order to enhance economic shortfall.

Just a thought...but the persons on the Hill make the big bucks...

Dave,

"political nuances"?...."sensitivities"?

Folks in small eastern states with irregular borders have the same property rights as folks in the big square states out-west!

Dave,
crafting laws "to take into account political nuances and sensitivities in certain regions" is exactly what giving authority to the states means. If the states don't want to protect thier own resources, that reflects the local sensitivity and political nuances.

The SWS has officially given support to the passage of the Clean Water Restoration Act.

From the SWS - Clean Water Restoration Act - Action Alert

Dear Colleague,

During the final day of our 30th annual conference in Madison, Wisconsin, a letter was circulated to the participants enlisting support for passage of the Clean Water Restoration Act http://online.nwf.org/site/Doc...er_2.pdf?docID=10501 that would restore legal protection to isolated wetlands and headwater streams. More than 125 participants attending the conference signed the letter. I encourage those of you who were not in attendance to download and read the letter (linked here *) and, if you support it, to sign it by sending your name and contact information to policy@wisconsinwetlands.org. If you wish to send individual letters to your congressmen and Senators, contact information for them can be found at http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml If you would like to track the status of the bill, you can do so at http://online.nwf.org/site/Pag...0Sites/CWRA_MainPage
I encourage you to reaffirm the important role that wetlands play in maintaining the chemical, physical and biological integrity of our nation’s waters by signing the letter. Thank you.

Christopher Craft
Past-President, SWS

The American Society of State Wetlands Managers (ASWM) has adopted a different strategy for federal re-regulation of isolated wetlands. The ASWM is trying to formulate a connection between wetlands and climate change, and then regulate wetlands under the proposed Waxman-Markey climate change legislation.

http://www.aswm.org/calendar/w...ions_2008_112008.htm

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Johnny Stevens,

For all the old-timers out there: "Happy Bastille Day!"

quote:

SCOUS on a mine in Alaska

Could you tell me what SCOUS stands for, and what mine in Alaska?
Thanks.