Opinion Editorial
Editorial

Congress shouldn't muddy the waters on the EPA's Clean Water Act rule

Hey, Congress, hands-off the EPA on the Clean Water Act
Clean water: U.S. is making progress, thanks to the EPA

The Clean Water Act, which has been on the books since 1972,, has slowed the degradation of the nation's lakes, rivers and streams by blocking polluters from using waterways as sewers. Careful oversight by the Environmental Protection Agency has brought many damaged rivers back to health, restoring them as safe drinking water sources and wildlife habitats and allowing them to continue bringing fresh water to environmentally sensitive wetlands.

A pair of U.S. Supreme Court rulings over the last 15 years found some EPA interpretations of the act overly broad, but the court failed to offer clear guidance on what was permissible and left it to the agency to craft rules governing just which waters the act covers. After considering scientific studies demonstrating the interconnection of waterways, and after a long and painstaking rule-making process, the agency proposed a sensible rule and put it out for public comment in March. The comment period remains open through the middle of October.

The proposed rule is especially important in California and elsewhere in the West, where more than half of the rivers and streams are seasonal — swelling with rain in winter and carrying their water to marshes, lakes or the sea, but going dry in the summer. Such streams are the places in which salmon and steelhead spawn, and are often the sources of clean water used for drinking and agriculture. The agency is seeking to make it clear that these waterways are covered by the Clean Water Act and may not be polluted, dug up or filled in.

Now some members of Congress are carrying the dirty water of would-be polluters by attacking the agency's very public, transparent and evenhanded process. Their tool is a late amendment to spending bills that would prevent another agency — the Army Corps of Engineers — from recognizing or enforcing any change in federal jurisdiction over water pollution. The Army Corps helped the EPA craft the rule and issues permits for projects that comply with pollution laws.

Congress should butt out and let the rule-making process take its course, both because the rule as proposed would restore some (although by no means all) of the protections that seasonal and other intermittent waterways had for years, and also because a spending bill is a sneaky way to derail months of careful work, not just by environmental administrators but by members of the public who have been helping to bring clarity and predictability to the law. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) deserves credit for keeping the amendment out of her subcommittee. Let's hope she can help keep the bill clean as it moves through the Appropriations Committee later this week.

Copyright © 2014, Los Angeles Times
Related Content
  • How the insurance industry sees climate change
    How the insurance industry sees climate change

    Twenty years ago, I interviewed Frank Nutter, then and now president of the Reinsurance Assn. of America, on the threat climate change posed to the $2-trillion-plus global property and casualty insurance industry.

  • Obama and the EPA: It's about rewarding friends and punishing enemies
    Obama and the EPA: It's about rewarding friends and punishing enemies

    The Environmental Protection Agency published its Clean Power Plan Proposed Rule last week. By how much would the rule reduce future temperatures? If we apply the climate model developed at the National Center for Atmospheric Research — used by both the United Nations and the EPA...

  • California's drought and D.C.'s dry solutions
    California's drought and D.C.'s dry solutions

    Masquerading as a response to California's drought, a bill to waive environmental protections and divert more water to Central Valley agriculture passed the Republican-controlled House in February and is now going to conference to be reconciled with a competing bill by Senator Dianne...

  • Now, about that solar farm next door
    Now, about that solar farm next door

    Last year, when the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power kicked off a new program to buy electricity from local solar installations, city leaders along with environmentalists and business groups said it would be the nation's largest urban rooftop solar program and would allow hundreds of...

  • Don't buy the smear of the EPA
    Don't buy the smear of the EPA

    The nation's worst polluters and their allies have launched a propaganda campaign to convince you that the Environmental Protection Agency's new carbon pollution standards are nothing more than a backdoor energy tax that will kill jobs and cost you money.

  • EPA plan to curb carbon emissions is pragmatic, smart and overdue
    EPA plan to curb carbon emissions is pragmatic, smart and overdue

    The Obama administration's new effort to reduce carbon emissions from power plants is pragmatic, smart and overdue. Nevertheless, the Environmental Protection Agency's proposed rule is already coming under attack from those who argue that it is economic suicide to force expensive and unilateral...

  • A gathering storm over hurricane names: Board up the ivory tower
    A gathering storm over hurricane names: Board up the ivory tower

    Everyone knows to beware of femme fatales. But I never thought that applied to hurricanes.

  • The promise of a balanced future for the Santa Monica Mountains
    The promise of a balanced future for the Santa Monica Mountains

    The coastal range of the Santa Monica Mountains is a vast regional treasure. Malibu Canyon cuts through the hills, its sides rising more than 2,000 feet above the Pacific Ocean. Groves of oaks and sycamores dot rolling waves of chaparral. Hundreds of species of plants and animals inhabit the...

Comments
Loading