April 1995 Issues Online June 2007 April 2007 February 2007 December 2006 October 2006 August 2006 June 2006 April 2006 February 2006 December 2005 October 2005 August 2005 June 2005 April 2005 February 2005 December 2004 October 2004 August 2004 June 2004 April 2004 February 2004 December 2003 October 2003 August 2003 June 2003 April 2003 February 2003 December 2002 October 2002 August 2002 June 2002 April 2002 February 2002 December 2001 October 2001 August 2001 June 2001 April 2001 February 2001 December 2000 October 2000 August 2000 June 2000 April 2000 February 2000 December 1999 October 1999 August 1999 June 1999 April 1999 February 1999 December 1998 October 1998 August 1998 June 1998 April 1998 February 1998 December 1997 October 1997 August 1997 June 1997 April 1997 February 1997 December 1996 October 1996 August 1996 June 1996 April 1996 February 1996 December 1995 October 1995 August 1995 June 1995 April 1995 February 1995 December 1994 October 1994 August 1994 June 1994 April 1994 February 1994 December 1993 October 1993 August 1993 Select any issue from the menu in this bar.

Clean Water Act Dilutions

If radical changes to the Clean Water Act adopted by a key House committee this month had been enacted in 1972, there would be no Bay-Delta accord, and half the wetlands now protected around the Bay would be open to development. Changes in legal definitions of wetlands and in water quality and stormwater regulation are just some of the drastic revisions in a Clean Water Act marked up in the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on April 6 and expected (at press time) to sail through a floor vote.

Although the revisions - won in a bitter fight between Rep. Bud Shuster (R-PA) and former committee chair Rep. Norm Mineta (D-CAL) - are clearly meant to favor industry, Roger James of the Santa Clara Valley Water District says California businesses could actually find themselves at a disadvantage if they are adopted.

"One of the things the 1972 Clean Water Act did was create a level playing field nationwide," says James. "If you have so much flexibility on the state level, industry in California, where the state regulations are fairly strict, wouldn't be competitive with other states where rules are lax."

That could be why support for the Republican-sponsored changes has been guarded, even among the business community. "The jury is still out on whether the new revisions to the act go too far," says Ellen Johnck of the Bay Planning Coalition, which works with Bay industry and municipalities. But Johnck says her group does favor the principles of property rights and risk assessment included in the changes to the bill.

Eric Federling, a spokesman for Mineta, was less qualified in his assessment. "It's a health, economic and environmental disaster," he says. "This bill would eviscerate coastal zone management and nonpoint control. It's a frontal assault on wetlands. The South Bay was way ahead of the game on in-house secondary treatment. This bill says that they could just turn those things off."

If it passes the House, the revised act will move on to the Senate, where opponents are counting on it being stalled by John Chaffee of Rhode Island, a fairly staunch environmentalist who heads the Environment and Public Works Committee, or failing that, by presidential veto.

Contact: House & Senate: (202)225-3121

«To @@(newsletter_title)@@ Index

[ ABAG HOME | SFEP HOME ]

Copyright © 2002, San Francisco Estuary Project