Swept Away in an Anti-Regulatory Tide : House wants to muddy up the invaluable Clean Water Act

The sorry history of water quality in the Santa Monica Bay should be Exhibit A against the congressional effort to erode the Clean Water Act. Unfortunately, the lesson is having a tough time getting through in the House, which is expected to send the Senate a bill that seriously weakens the 1972 law.

Southern California beaches accounted for a third of all U.S. beaches closed in 1993 due to bacteria. Locally, beach closures and warnings have grown steadily, doubling to nearly 1,400 from 1992 to 1993.

The many causes of Santa Monica Bay’s poor health defy easy or inexpensive solution. But the changes to the Clean Water Act sought by the House majority undermine the hard-won cooperative solutions that public and private groups achieved in recent years to bolster this vital local resource. Among those solutions are an accord to restore parts of the Ballona Wetlands while allowing development and an agreement by about 50 groups to curb storm runoff into the bay and protect marine life. These plans, and funding to implement them, may now be in jeopardy.

NEW BALLGAME: Federal rules governing sewage treatment at the City of Los Angeles’ Hyperion plant (and at the county’s plant in Carson) also are at issue. For years the city was exempt from a requirement for secondary treatment--removal of most bacteria and viruses--before discharging sewage into the bay. But under a 1987 agreement, the city began to upgrade Hyperion to bring it into compliance. Now, under the House bill, discharge that had been defined as unacceptably dangerous would be redefined as clean enough.

Since passage of the Clean Water Act, the number of lakes and rivers that are swimmable and fishable has doubled. Untreated sewage and toxic chemicals no longer may be poured into bodies of water, and preservation of ecologically fragile wetlands, which protect against floods, is ensured after decades of reckless filling.

But enough is enough, say many congressional Republicans and some Democrats. The Clean Water Act, they say, imposes too many rules and too great a cost for business. In the narrowest view, that is true. Yet in the long run--and all worthy environmental regulation is grounded in concern about the future--cleaner bays, rivers and lakes unquestionably benefit people and businesses alike.

CLOUT FOR STATES: The House bill would undercut nearly 25 years of protection by granting more “flexibility” to states. The legislation turns on its head the wise presumption on which the 1972 law is based: that clean public waterways are of incalculable value to every American. The bill, sponsored by Rep. Bud Shuster (R-Pa.), would change that presumption by requiring all new water quality standards--as well as existing standards that come up for renewal--to pass a cost/benefit test. Only rules that “maximize net benefits to society” would take effect. Though that sounds eminently reasonable, consider that under the existing law, states already may consider economic hardship when determining whether a river or lake should meet lesser standards. And the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency already considers economic feasibility in setting standards for industrial discharges (though some in industry are unhappy with what they see as EPA rigidity).

State and local officials could use the nebulous new standard to say in effect that the nation chooses not to make further improvements in waste water treatment, storm water discharge or watershed and estuary management. If the EPA reached a different conclusion in some cases, as it surely would, more legal challenges than cleanup could be expected. So unless reason prevails in the Senate, look for more local beach closings.