In his opening statement, Oberstar referred to the two Supreme Court decisions (Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. Corps of Engineers in 2001 and Rapanos et ux., et al. v. United States in 2006) that disregarded Congress’ original intent to protect the nation’s inter- and intra-state waters in the 1972 landmark Clean Water Act.

“Over the past three decades, the Clean Water Act and its predecessor legislation set the structure we have today for a federal-state partnership to ensure a dependable, safe source for clean water,” said Oberstar. “The Supreme Court, in its SWANCC and Rapanos decisions, confused the scene and muddied the long standing, commonly held understanding about federal jurisdiction over the nation’s waters. What the Supreme Court left behind is regulatory confusion -- even chaos. I believe that H.R. 2421 can correct the regulatory uncertainties and inconsistencies created by SWANCC and Rapanos.”

When the Clean Water Act passed in 1972, two-thirds of the nation’s waters were polluted and unacceptable for recreational activities. Today, less than one-third do not meet the fishable and swimmable standards.

“In 1972, the states wanted a baseline, consistent federal standard for the nation’s waters, so that industry wouldn’t be tempted to relocate to laissez-faire states. We cannot return to the days when the Cuyahoga River was on fire and soap suds floated down the Ohio River. The central purpose of the Clean Water Act was to address controlled point sources and establish the basis to deal with non-point sources of pollution. The Clean Water Act was designed to assist states with keeping their part of the bargain, while recognizing and providing exemptions for certain variables, such as agricultural return flows and storm water runoffs” Oberstar said. “Thirty years later, we can say with great certainty that it has been one of the most successful environmental laws ever enacted.”

Oberstar described his legislative proposal as a common sense, economical and practical approach to reestablishing federal jurisdiction over isolated, intermittent and ephemeral waters.

He said he welcomed specific recommendations on how best to address the regulatory uncertainty created by SWANCC and Rapanos.

“The goal of H.R. 2421 is to restore Clean Water protections that were in place prior to the Supreme Court decisions – not to go beyond the Clean Water Act or extend its reach. The bill is not intended to ignite old debates, but to put the Clean Water Act back on track,” Oberstar said. “At a hearing this Committee held last year, we heard a wide range of views about jurisdictional questions created by the misguided Supreme Court decisions. I invite the witnesses testifying today to make specific recommendations for adjustments to the bill so that we can move forward. This bill is a starting point for discussions, not an inflexible document, and I remain open to making adaptations to this proposal.”

Oberstar noted that more than 300 organizations support H.R. 2421, as introduced.

“With enactment of this legislation, the understanding of Clean Water jurisdiction that existed for 30 years will be reestablished, there will be regulatory certainty, and the nation will be better able to protect and maintain its water-related environment,” concluded Oberstar. “All the water we ever had or ever will have is with us today. We must pass it on to the next generation cleaner than how we found it.”

Contact:
Mary Kerr
(202)225-6260