Something smells fishy in Oberstar's clean water bill

[Lee Borgersen]

5/8/2010 Ely Echo
 
Something smells fishy in Oberstar's clean water bill

Ely Echo Editorial

Anytime we hear the federal government wants more control, the many battles over the Boundary Waters Canoe Area come to mind.

So when Rep. Jim Oberstar says he has a bill to save Minnesota lakes by passing a more powerful Clean Water Act, we just have to wonder, has Jim forgotten?

Or has Oberstar fallen victim to what he railed against, transferring power to D.C. instead of letting local, county and state government handle regulatory duties?

Oberstar's bill has been assailed by property rights groups over concerns that instead of just protecting navigable waters, the feds will have control over any spot of land known to hold water, on both public and private lands.

He acknowledged this opposition in a press release and claims the bill will only bring the law back into what was on the books before court decisions muddied the water.

"A number of...organizations...expressed concerns that the legislation would extend the scope of the Clean Water Act, instead of simply restoring its original authority. The current bill includes modifications that will address those concerns. 'Simply put, if it was not regulated before 2001, it will not be regulated with the enactment of this legislation,' said Oberstar."

We would like to believe Oberstar on this one, but folks in these parts have been lied to before over what the federal government will do or won't do concerning woods and water.

People still remember promises made by then Senator Hubert Humphrey that people would be able to use the BWCA just as they had in the past.

Those promises were ultimately broken.

Oberstar's bill may have a central rallying cry for both sides: just how much water does the federal government have control over? The 1972 Clean Water Act allowed the feds, through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, to regulate "navigable waters."

And as we have seen with the U.S. Coast Guard, the definition of "navigable waters" can expand rapidly.

Our towboat operators are still looking at being regulated at the same level as if they were pulling into a major port with their 16-foot jon boats. The growing list of area lakes that are considered "navigable waters" and under federal control is nearly laughable.

We believe Oberstar is heading down a path he's familiar with, telling the states what's good for them. Waters in Minnesota have plenty of protection through state agencies, but apparently that's not good enough. Or Oberstar has no faith at all in state agencies.

Clean water is a rallying cry heard often from groups that have something they're opposed to and need a hook to set. Question their methods and the response is predictable, "So you're against clean water?"

We're not against clean water and we really don't know anybody who is. We are questioning the need for the federal government to extend their reach in the land of 10,000 lakes.

We still believe the state should manage the lakes, with the exception of areas that truly have interstate commerce. The Constitution reserves the right of federal control over interstate commerce and that holds water with us.

But to extend that reach to every pothole, swamp and creek does not.

Oberstar may be doing this with the best of intentions, or he may be giving in to the wishes of groups that believe ruling from afar is good government.

Either way, Jim's all wet on this one.