|
|
Tuesday, February 9, 2010 |
Serving Seguin and Guadalupe County since 1888
|
|
|
Marketplace
Sections
Services
Service Center
|
|
 |
|
Wording in Clean Water Act leads to worry
Published September 18, 2009
SEGUIN — What a difference a word can make.
It was one word — “navigable” — to be dropped in a proposed amendment to the 1972 Federal Water Pollution Control Act that has convinced a coalition of local governments and government officials from across the country to oppose the Clean Water Restoration Act on the grounds that it erodes the rights of property owners and could constitute what detractors say would be an unwarranted power grab by Washington D.C. that would usurp the authority of landowners and local governments.
And Tuesday, Guadalupe County Commissioners voted unanimously to pass a resolution condemning the change and seeking a change in the proposed law, which is known by its working name, Senate Bill 787, and was sponsored by Wisconsin Senator Russell Feingold and 24 others as an attempt to clarify the jurisdiction of the federal government in protecting waters and wetlands.
Precinct 4 Commissioner Judy Cope placed the question on the agenda after learning that the National Association of Counties has strongly opposed Senate Bill 787. A political action committee that calls itself the National Water & Conservation Alliance is lobbying to help defeat the bill, which has been recommended for passage by the U.S. Senate’s Committee on the Environment and Public Works.
The legislation amends the body of law known as the “Clean Water Act” by replacing the term “navigable” with the phrase “waters of the U.S.,” which detractors say would include wetlands, mudflats, sandflats, prairie potholes, stock tanks and even bar ditches on private property. The bill would also expand federal control over activities that affect such “waters,” and could, Cope believes, result in a cumbersome and intrusive permitting process.
“It would allow the regulatory reach of the Clean Water Act to extend to all waters, and not just ‘navigable’ waters as the law now reads,” Cope told the other commissioners. “These could include stock ponds and tanks and a host of currently defined, non-navigable waters. This is an infringement on the rights of taxpayers to manage their property without undue interference by the federal government.”
That wasn’t Cope’s only problem with the legislation.
“I don’t know what it was intended to do, but even if it could be implemented, it doesn’t achieve its stated goals,” Cope said.
Assistant County Attorney Robert Etlinger, who advises commissioners on the law, has concerns similar to Cope’s, and he raised them Tuesday — with the caveat he was speaking as a citizen expressing his own personal opinion and not in his official capacity.
Etlinger’s family place has four stock ponds and two dry creeks, all of which he fears would fall under the Clean Water Act as the proposed law is written.
“It really doesn’t define what this bill is supposed to do,” Etlinger said. “It doesn’t restore clean water — that’s done by state government and landowners. What this would do is it would allow someone 1,500 miles away to set the policy on my property.”
County Judge Mike Wiggins said the question was a simple one.
“In a nutshell, what we’re asking is the word ‘navigable’ be kept in the bill,” Wiggins said.
Cope made the motion for passage, and Precinct 1 Commissioner Roger Baenziger seconded it for the unanimous vote.
Share |
Save |
Mail |
Print |
Comment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|