House Debates Environmental Limits Bill : Legislation: Final vote is expected on measure aimed at overhauling the Clean Water Act of 1972. Bill would ease anti-pollution restrictions.

The House began debate Wednesday on legislation to overhaul the Clean Water Act of 1972, taking up a measure that would loosen controls on water pollution and wetlands in an effort to reduce the regulatory burden borne by states, cities, businesses and landowners.

The bill, however, has drawn fierce opposition from environmental groups and some government organizations that warn it will undo years of environmental progress and end up costing taxpayers dearly.

The measure, expected to come to a final vote Friday, is the first of a series of GOP-drafted environmental bills to reach the House floor. It is expected to signal the fate of future environmental legislation that comes before the Republican-controlled House.

The measure rewrites the controversial rules that define wetlands and protect them from development--changes sought by farmers and developers and fiercely opposed by environmental advocates.

Other sections of the bill would end compulsory anti-pollution plans for coastal states, allow cities in California and other coastal states to dump lightly treated sewage into the ocean and ease water-treatment requirements that have been costly to many industries and big-city sewer operations.

Proponents of the bill said that it simply “restores common sense” to an area of environmental law that has become overly complex and restrictive.

Opponents warned that it would reverse progress made in cleaning up the nation’s waterways, cost taxpayers billions of dollars by forcing government to compensate some landowners and embolden polluters to turn to Congress for relief from laws that they consider burdensome.

“If we vote for this bill, we’ll have more than dirty water,” said House Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.). “We’ll have an unclean conscience. This is a bill by the special interests, for the special interests.”

The bill, which emerged last month from the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, has defied clear partisan labels, splitting Republicans and Democrats alike. It appears destined to lead to a standoff between Congress and President Clinton, who has indicated that he would veto the bill if it is sent to him in the form now under consideration in the House.

The House version also seems destined for a tough test in the Senate, which is expected to consider the legislation in late summer. Sen. John H. Chafee (R-R.I.) chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, is not enthusiastic about the House bill.

“Sen. Chafee considers the current Clean Water Act on the books right now to be an outstanding environmental success story and he is not anxious to participate in a major rewrite of that,” an aide said.

One of the leading challenges to the bill came Wednesday from two Republican lawmakers, who called the measure extreme and proposed a compromise that won bipartisan support. But the substitute by Reps. H. James Saxton (R-N.J.) and Sherwood Boehlert (R-N.Y.), which would have retained much of the existing law, lost, 242 to 184, Wednesday night.

The bill, HR 961, starkly illustrates the political reversals that environmentalists have suffered in Congress as lawmakers intent on rolling back government regulation, rather than extending its reach, have taken control.

Last year, environmental activists and their allies hoped to strengthen the Clean Water Act when it came up for reauthorization, adding measures to limit pollution flowing into rivers and lakes from farms and city streets. This year, however, these activists will simply be trying to limit the rollbacks.

Backers of the bill pointed to the support of state and local government officials, including the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National Governors Assn., the National League of Cities and the National Assn. of Counties. “The argument made here today” by critics, said Rep. Bud Shuster (R-Pa.), chairman of the House panel that drafted the proposed legislation, “is that Washington knows best.”

But opponents pointed to the opposition of such local groups as the National Conference of State Legislatures, the Coastal States Organization and an organization of state Fish and Wildlife managers. They added that the bill is overwhelmingly supported by, and was drafted in close coordination with, industry groups that have much to gain from its provisions.

One of the most politically sensitive provisions would change the process by which federal agencies identify and limit the development of wetlands.

The bill would consolidate responsibility for defining wetlands under the Army Corps of Engineers and the Agriculture Department and direct the agencies to classify such terrain into three categories. Only land falling in the first of those categories would be subject to land-use restrictions.

Critics charged that the new plan would open for development as much as 70% of wetlands currently protected by the government. That, they said, would contribute to a general decline in the nation’s water quality, since wetlands have been shown to play a leading role in helping to filter impurities from water, as well as to mitigate floods and provide essential habitat for migrating birds.

The bill also would require the government to compensate landowners if federal wetland restrictions devalue their property by more than 20%. That provision alone, critics charged, could cost taxpayers $15 billion.

The measure would profoundly affect California, where wetlands and coastal zone regulations are the subject of great dispute. Only 9% of the state’s original 5 million acres of wetlands remain, a greater percentage loss than any other state. According to Robert Sulnick of the environmental group American Oceans Campaign, “the remaining wetlands in California would be developed without question” under the proposed legislation.

By relaxing rules on dumping sewage into the ocean, the measure would allow the city of San Diego to forgo construction of a plant designed to treat the city’s sewage, as currently required under the Clean Water Act, before piping it out into water 4 1/2 miles off the coast.

The Environmental Protection Agency has estimated that the legislation would allow about 80 cities to dump more sewage and industrial wastes into coastal waters.

Rep. Randy (Duke) Cunningham (R-San Diego) called critics of the measure “those who want to use the Clean Water Act as a weapon for no development at all.” He said that freeing San Diego from the burden of building the plant actually would save as much as $12 billion in the years ahead.

Times staff writer Faye Fiore contributed to this story.