Views
Clean Water Restoration Act of 2007
From OpenCongress Wiki
Back to main bill page for votes, text and more.
 |
See other articles on energy and environment policy legislation, related congressional scorecards or all articles on legislation. | |
| Participate: Edit this article | Report an error | Help build and oversee the wiki | ||
The Clean Water Restoration Act of 2007, introduced during the 110th Congress, sought to clarify the jurisdiction of the U.S. government over waters located in the country, largely for the purpose of dealing with water pollution.
| H.R.2421 (110th Congress) - Clean Water Restoration Act of 2007 | Status: Introduced |
Contents |
House
The bill (H.R. 2421) was introduced by Rep. Jim Oberstar (D-Minn.), chair of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, on May 22, 2007. As of June 12, 2007, it had collected 162 cosponsors.[1]
Details
The measure amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act in order to clarify the jurisdiction of the U.S. federal government in dealing with water pollution. To allow the jurisdiction to unambiguously extend to all waters in the U.S., it replaces the existing term "navigable waters" with "waters of the United States", which means "all waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide, the territorial seas, and all interstate and intrastate waters and their tributaries, including lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, natural ponds, and all impoundments of the foregoing, to the fullest extent that these waters, or activities affecting these waters." [1]
According to Beth Wellington of The Writing Corner, the measure, first introduced in 2003, is a response to U.S. Supreme Court decisions which previously eroded the strength of the Clean Water Act. For instance, the court's ruling in Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. United States (SWANCC) removed federal protection of "isolated" waters based solely on their use by migratory birds. The consolidated cases of Carabell v. United States and Rapanos v. United States, decided in June 2006, also eroded wetland protections.[1]
Support and opposition
Support
The measure received the support of environmental and citizens groups such as Riverkeeper, U.S. PIRG, Natural Resources Defense Fund, EarthJustice, National Wildlife Federation, Citizen's Campaign for the Environment, and the Sierra Club. [1]
Opposition
The measure was opposed by the National Water Resources Associations, a nonprofit federation which includes rural water districts, municipal water entities, and commercial companies and individuals. It was also opposed by the National Association of Counties, the National Corn Growers Association, and others.[1]
