Gary Botzek: It's not a flaunting of federal power

Even as we enter the dog days of summer, when some of our lakes turn green with algae, we Minnesotans wouldn't trade them for anything. We need to do more to protect them, not less. The same applies to rivers and wetlands.

One protection, the Clean Water Act, is critical -- for drinking water, for our outdoor-recreation heritage, for fish and wildlife, and for the quality of life of all Minnesotans. The Minnesota Conservation Federation does not believe the act to be an attempt to thwart property rights, as argued on this page Aug. 3 by Linda C. Runbeck and Don Parmeter of the American Property Coalition. It is, instead, all about the environment.

The act has been pivotal in maintaining and restoring waters for more than 35 years -- until two recent Supreme Court decisions threatened to roll back safeguards from many wetlands, streams, lakes and ponds. At issue is the court's narrow interpretation of "navigable waters." More than half of Minnesota's streams do not flow year-round and are at risk of losing Clean Water Act protections. So are the many wetlands adjacent to those streams.

Almost a million Minnesotans receive some of their drinking water from areas that could lose protection. In addition, the state Department of Natural Resources has estimated that up to 23 percent of the state's wetlands could be considered "isolated" and thus particularly vulnerable to losing safeguards.

U.S. Rep. Jim Oberstar of Minnesota's Eighth District is to be applauded for his leadership on the Clean Water Restoration Act, not derided as Runbeck and Parmeter have done. Oberstar's statement that the bill would restore protections as originally intended by Congress is based on a wealth of legislative history. It deserves respect.

Gary Botzek is executive director of the Minnesota Conservation Federation.