Skip to content
Link copied to clipboard

DN Editorial: Congress considers muddying Clean Water Act

THIS JUST IN: Rivers often cross state boundaries. In fact, some rivers actually are state boundaries. So if hazardous waste were dumped into the Delaware River in, say, Trenton, some of it would almost certainly find its way to Philadelphia.

THIS JUST IN: Rivers often cross state boundaries. In fact, some rivers actually

are

state boundaries.

So if hazardous waste were dumped into the Delaware River in, say, Trenton, some of it would almost certainly find its way to Philadelphia.

And we likely would have a problem with that.

When it comes to water quality, we're all in this together. That's why the Clean Water Act - which sets and mandates the enforcement of national standards for water quality - has been essential to protecting the environment for nearly four decades.

As we learned in the 1960s, when it's "every state for itself," rivers catch fire, you can't swim in lakes, fish are too polluted to eat, and feuding states have to go to court to duke it out over whose garbage is whose.

If some shortsighted members of Congress have their way, the United States could very well be singing a reprise of "Burn On, Big River, Burn On," Randy Newman's hymn to the fiery Cuyahoga. If it were to become law, a bill approved early last month by the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee would undo two generations of environmental progress.

Apparently, one congressman from West Virginia is angry because the Environmental Protection Agency has blocked mountaintop coal-removal methods that jeopardize watersheds. Another from Florida doesn't like government-mandated safeguards against chemical pollutants. So they cooked up legislation that not only will make it easier on the polluters in their states, but render the Clean Water Act useless for the 48 others.

According to an EPA analysis, if the "Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act" became law, the agency would be prevented from upgrading water-quality standards if an individual state disagreed with the changes - even if there were scientifically demonstrated threats to human health or aquatic life. In addition, the bill would keep the EPA from refereeing disputes among states.

In short, the proposed legislation would pretty much allow individual states to veto standards set by the Clean Water Act - the better to attract polluters or please local industries that want to avoid the expense of cleaning up the poisonous crap they generate - and that just might want to show their gratitude by making big contributions to the helpful politicians' election campaigns.

Environmental groups say this legislation is the single most serious threat to the Clean Water Act in its 39-year history. Congress should "deep-six" it.