Dennis Anderson: Oberstar says his bill would protect wetlands

U.S. Rep. Jim Oberstar, D-Minn., last month introduced a bill to affirm what he says is the intent of the Clean Water Act: to protect all the nation's waters. Chair of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Oberstar said he believes the U.S. Supreme Court erred when it ruled the act's protection extends only to navigable waters. Conservation groups say 20 million wetland acres are at risk. Below, Oberstar discusses the Clean Water Act and his proposed revisions to it.

Q: You introduced a "restored" Clean Water Act four years ago, again two years ago and again last month. But your involvement with the Clean Water Act dates to its origin in the 1970s.

A: Yes. I was administrator of the House Public Works Committee in 1972, which it was called then, when I was on the staff of Congressman John Blatnik, who chaired the committee. In 1956, he offered the first federal Water Pollution Control Act, with the intent of cleaning up the nation's waters, rivers, lakes and estuaries. President Eisenhower signed that bill, but in 1960 vetoed increased funding for it. President Kennedy later signed another Blatnik pollution control bill, and President Johnson signed another one. Then came the Clean Water Act of 1972, which Nixon vetoed. But Congress over-road him, 10 to 1.

Q: The 2001 Supreme Court decision concerning a proposed Chicago-area landfill said the Clean Water Act only protects "navigable" waters, not watersheds feeding navigable waters. What's your understanding of the law's intent?

A: In crafting the Clean Water Act, we spent 10 months in conference with the Senate. Every word was sculpted and scrubbed. The opening paragraph says the purpose is to establish and maintain the biological, chemical and physical integrity of the nation's waters. It doesn't say the nation's navigable waters. For 30 years, the law has been administered in keeping with that definition. State DNRs, the EPA, the Corps of Engineers. Each has interpreted the act that all waters are to be protected. Then along came the Supreme Court, and because it found the word "navigable" twice in the law, the justices ruled otherwise. It was Justice Scalia, writing for the court, who created this legal fiction. Which is why I introduced the Clean Water Restoration Act.

Q: What does the bill do?

A: It continues the practice of protecting watersheds and wetlands as we have the past 30 years. It doesn't do anything new; just restates clearly what we have been doing. Some right-wing groups are trying to stir up hysteria over the bill, saying it will do this and that. It's not true. Through the act, we've been able to save wetlands, protect waterfowl nesting and feeding grounds and protect places used by migratory waterfowl. We've lost half the nation's wetlands since 1900. Protection is needed.

Q: How much support is there in the House?

A: We have more than 150 co-sponsors, Republicans as well as Democrats, representing a wide range of economic and geographic interests. Hunters, anglers and environmentalists and their organizations also are supportive, including Hunters and Anglers for the Clean Water Restoration Act, Ducks Unlimited, Trout Unlimited, Delta Waterfowl and a whole host of environmental groups, including the National Wildlife Federation.

Q: What's the bill's status in the Senate?

A: I've talked with Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), chair of the Senate committee where a bill would be heard. But there is no companion bill in the Senate at this time.

Q: What about Minnesota Sens. Norm Coleman and Amy Klobuchar?

A: Well, they could pick up my bill and introduce it in the Senate. If the bill can get to the Senate floor, it'll pass. But whether it can get to the floor, I don't know. The procedures over there are arcane.

Q: Will it pass the House?

A: Yes.

Q: Who's against it?

A: The Heritage Foundation, which is a Republican think tank that seems to oppose anything the federal government does. Realtors had questions about it. But I talked to them and they said it's something they can accept. Also a group called the Waters Advocacy Coalition was formed to oppose it. It includes the Fertilizer Institute, the International Council of Shopping Centers, the National Association of Home Builders, National Industrial and Office Properties and the National Association of Manufacturers.