Statements On Introduced Bills And Joint Resolutions

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, If there is one environmental issue that divides us more than unites us, it's water, especially in the West.

Farmers, ranchers, cities, towns, all compete for limited supplies. Salmon and other economically and culturally important fish depend on its flow. If it is not water quantity, then it is water quality that makes what gets passed on to the next water user the source of contention.

The Clean Water Act has been enormously successful at making water users clean up the water that they use before it is discharged back into lakes, rivers, and streams, and, before it's used by the next person downstream. It has also helped ensure the survival of fish and wildlife.

Over the past 8 years, the U.S. Supreme Court has rendered two major decisions that have restricted the scope of the Act. As it is now being interpreted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Corps of Engineers, the Act no longer prevents the discharge of pollution or fill into many wetlands or intermittent streams, lakes and ponds. By some estimates, more than half the streams in Oregon could be classified as intermittent streams and no longer protected. Another estimate concludes that over one million Oregonians get their drinking water from sources that would no longer be fully protected by the Clean Water Act. I think this is the wrong thing to do.

Last year, I cosponsored S. 1870--the Clean Water Restoration Act--legislation which was intended to return the protections of the Clean Water Act to the way they were before these two Supreme Court decisions occurred. No more, and no less.

In my town hall meetings around Oregon, I have received questions and complaints about this legislation. The biggest concern that many people had was that this new bill was actually going to expand the reach of the Federal Government over water regulation in ways that would literally threaten the ability of farmers to farm and ranchers to ranch. People were also concerned that this legislation would not only regulate discharges into rivers and streams, but it would also regulate the quantity of water they use.

I am no supporter of Federal water grabs. I would not have cosponsored this legislation in the last Congress if it would threaten Oregon farmers' ability to farm or our ranchers' ability to ranch. I would have opposed it.

Ranchers and farmers and forest owners know how to be stewards of the land they ranch and farm and manage because their livelihoods depend on it,
and if they are not careful about how they manage that land there will be nothing to pass on to the next generation. The same is true for how we must treat our rivers, streams and wetlands.

So over the past few months, my staff and I have worked with Senator Feingold, the primary sponsor of the bill, to clarify that intent of this legislation is to simply restore the interpretation of the Clean Water Act to what it had been before these Supreme Court decisions. No more, and no less.

Earlier this year, in response to my concerns about how the bill would impact rural Oregon, Senator Feingold reiterated in a letter to me his intent that the Clean Water Restoration Act not expand the scope of the law. Sen. Feingold also revised the text of the bill in a way that I believe makes it even clearer that the goal is not to expand the scope of the Clean Water Act beyond what it was in 2001 before the Supreme Court decisions.

First of all, the bill again includes a savings clause that clearly continues the existing exemption for irrigation return flows from Clean Water Act regulation. It continues the exemption for dredged or fill materials from normal farming, silviculture and ranching activities. It continues the exemption for construction and maintenance of farm or stock ponds or irrigation ditches and drainage ditches. It continues the exemption for construction and maintenance of farm roads or forest roads.

Second, the bill now contains a much more detailed set of findings that make it absolutely clear that the intent of Congress with enactment of the bill is to restore the regulatory system for the Clean Water Act to what it was before these two Supreme Court decisions. These findings also make it clear that the bill is not regulating ground water, only surface water, just as the Clean Water Act has always done. The findings make it clear that exclusions for prior converted cropland and manmade impoundments remain in place. They make it clear that the intent is to regulate water quality, not quantity or ownership.

If more changes are needed to ensure that the bill does what Sen. Feingold and I say it does, than I am certainly open to making more changes to make sure the Senate gets this crucial issue right.

Some people do not like the pre-2001 Clean Water Act regulatory system. Some believe that the Supreme Court did the right thing by removing many wetlands and intermittent streams and lakes from the protections of the Clean Water Act. I disagree. I think those protections are needed to protect our water supplies and our environment and wildlife habitat. Farmers and ranchers need those protections for their livelihoods. But I want to be absolutely clear, that I will not support expanding Federal authority in this area beyond what it was before 2001.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support be printed in the Record.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be placed in the Record

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source