Clean Water Act’s Essential Role in Restoring the Great Lakes

                                                                                              Kayaking on the Cuyahoga River in Cleveland, Ohio.


As the Clean Water Act celebrates its 40th anniversary, conservation leaders are asking public officials to not undermine protections which have lead to healthier water to drink; cleaner streams, rivers and lakes in which to swim, fish and play; and dramatically lower rates of natural wetland loss.
 
“The Clean Water Act has been instrumental in improving our environment and economy for people across the nation,” said Jan Goldman-Carter, senior manager of Wetlands and Water Resources for the National Wildlife Federation. “Unfortunately, over the last decade Clean Water Act protections have been eroding. Public officials need to restore bedrock protections that benefit our health, economy and way of life.”
 
For the past decade, Clean Water Act protections for wetlands, lakes and streams have been put at risk. Over the past two years, the Clean Water Act has been under relentless attack by some members of Congress. These attacks are jeopardizing drinking water for 117 million Americans and accelerating wetland losses that damage hunting, fishing and wildlife watching.
 
The Clean Water Act anniversary comes amidst a national commitment to restore the Great Lakes and other iconic U.S. waters. The Great Lakes have received more than $1 billion to restore habitat, clean up toxic pollutants and reduce run-off from farmsand cities.
 
“Great Lakes restoration projects are producing results, but there is more work to do,” said Gary Botzek, executive director of the Minnesota Conservation Federation. “At a time when the nation is making historic investments to restore the Great Lakes, Mississippi River and other U.S. waters, it does not make sense to undermine those efforts by weakening strong clean water protections.”
 
The Clean Water Act has been essential in the effort to restore the Great Lakes and the waters which feed it, including streams and wetlands. U.S. Congress passed the law four decades ago, as rivers were catching fire, Lake Erie was declared “dead” and fish and wildlife populations were suffering devastating impacts. Passage of the act—and subsequent infusion of federal funds to help modernize wastewater infrastructure in communities across the region and across the country—helped to dramatically improve water quality.
 
“Before passage of the Clean Water Act, people treated waterways like open sewers,” said Chuck Matyska, president ofWisconsin Wildlife Federation. “Now, water quality has improved. Fish populations are back. Simply, the Clean Water Act is a winner for people and wildlife.”
 
Clean water is especially vital to the economy in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, New York, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, fishing, hunting and wildlife-watching generated $36.8 billion per year in those states in 2011.
 
“For the first time in decades, the number of people fishing and hunting has increased,” said Kent Wood, legislative director forMichigan United Conservation Clubs. “The Clean Water Act has paved the way for healthier habitat and healthier fish and wildlife populations—and that is healthier for the economy as well. Good hunting and fishing opportunities result from abundant wildlife. Wildlife requires good habitat, and good habitat requires clean water. It is a chain. You cannot have one without the other, and it would be a mistake to undermine the progress we’re seeing by weakening the Clean Water Act.”
 
A recent National Wildlife Federation poll found 79 percent of sportsmen support clean water protections. Families, communities, farmers and businesses large and small depend on clean, healthy waters for their health, jobs and prosperity. The Clean Water Act is essential to keeping our drinking water safe; providing millions of acres of fish and wildlife habitat across the country; ensuring abundant clean water for irrigating crops; and bolstering the robust fishery, tourism and outdoor recreation industries.
 
“A key part of the Clean Water Act has been to give millions of people a voice to protect and improve the waters that they depend on,” said Brian Perbix, grassroots organizer for Prairie Rivers Network. “The act has helped clean up water across the country—but there’s still more to do. Now’s not the time to chisel away at one of the most successful laws in this nation’s history.”



ecowatch.org

Forty! It Only Gets Better From Here?

The Clean Water Act turns 40 on October 18th, with a remarkable record of accomplishment.  I remember back in the 1960s when the Great Lakes were declared dead, the Cuyahoga River caught on fire and many of our rivers were so full of toxic chemicals that they’d eat the paint right off boats.  I remember being told not to eat the fish from Lake Ontario or to swim at the beach near my neighborhood.

Today, the Clean Water Act has fixed many of those problems.  The Great Lakes are much healthier and cleaner.  Rivers in cities like Philadelphia, Providence, Washington DC and others are now tourist attractions! Fishing, boating and water-based recreation are huge job-creators and sources of income for communities.  We’ve made incredible progress in cleaning up our rivers, lakes and streams, and our communities are healthier and more vibrant for it.

So you’d think the 40^th anniversary of the Clean Water Act’s passage would be a time of celebration and re-dedication to the cause of clean water.  You’d think we’d be focusing on the challenges we still face and the problems we haven’t yet solved.  But instead, polluters and their allies in Congress can’t stop trying to weaken this landmark law.  In fact, on the very last day before they recessed for the election in September, the U.S. House of Representatives passed yet another bill that would undermine EPA’s ability to make sure states uphold the clean water protections in the Act!

It only gets worse from there. Since January 2011, the U.S. House of Representatives has voted 38 times to roll-back critical Clean Water Act protections.  Thankfully, the Senate and Obama Administration have prevented any of these roll-backs from becoming law.  This is one of the main reasons Clean Water Action has endorsed Obama for President in 2012.  The contrast between the environmental platforms of the two presidential candidates could not be starker – while the Obama administration has introduced guidelines to help restore Clean Water Act protections to streams and wetlands, a Romney administration would only protect so-called “navigable” water from pollution and destruction.  You can learn more about our 2012 campaign endorsements here.

This month Clean Water Action is joining other environmental groups to celebrate the 40^th anniversary of the Clean Water Act.  We are celebrating its accomplishments and the incredible progress we’ve made.  And we are rededicating ourselves to the goal the Act laid out: making all of our nation’s waters fishable and swimmable. I hope you will join us in celebrating 40 years of Clean Water success!

cleanwateraction.org

Clean Water Fund ad Shines a Light on Oil Shale’s Danger to Western Water

After a summer of record drought in Colorado, some politicians and industry executives continue to push oil shale speculation in spite of its potentially disastrous effect on the state’s water supply. No one knows just how much water oil shale companies would use or pollute, but this summer’s drought proves that oil shale poses an unacceptable risk to Colorado families and businesses that depend on the state’s rivers.

The Interior Department is expected to make a decision this fall on how oil shale research and development will be managed on Colorado’s public lands.

In an effort to raise awareness with westerners, Clean Water Fund recently launched an ad campaign talking about how oil shale could drain our water away.

The amount of water required to produce oil from oil shale could be staggering. Commercial oil shale development might require as much as 123 billion gallons of water each year, enough water for more than 750,000 households.

Oil shale isn’t even oil. It’s a rock that must be melted by heating it to at least 700 degrees for months or even years to be processed into oil. As you can imagine, this process could require huge new demands on energy and water.

Because no oil company has discovered the right technology to make commercially viable oil shale development possible, no one knows just how much water would be required.  What we do know is that after a century of research, all oil companies have to show for their effort is failure and polluted water.

Oil shale mining and processing can leach toxic metals and pollutants including selenium, cadmium, and arsenic into the water supply. In fact, when Unocal’s Anvil Points research operation near Rifle, Colorado was abandoned in 1984, it was discovered that the operation had polluted water with arsenic for nearly 30 years before serious clean-up efforts were conducted.

Now in 2012, the severe drought has stretched water supplies thin for cities and farms, and our rivers across the state are flowing so low that fish populations are severely impacted and the recreational economy has been drained away.  We need to know the exact risks oil shale poses on our water supply and the health of our rivers.  Oil shale companies have already secured more than 200 water rights and 100 irrigation ditches in Colorado.  If those rights were ever used for oil shale mining and processing, it would strain already overburdened water and river resources.

Clean Water Fund’s ad campaign intended to demonstrate just what Colorado families could face unless BLM adopts a smart approach to oil shale.

Be sure to check out our online video featuring a fisherman on a riverbank, two kayakers, and a young girl with goggles ready to enjoy a river, not realizing it has run dry.  The West needs a smart approach to this issue, including a full study of oil shale impacts to water quality and quantity.

Interior Department Secretary Ken Salazar understands this issue well and has an opportunity to make a lasting impact for the West and our rivers and water – let’s make sure he does it.

By Gary Wockner@cleanwateraction.org

EPA Fails to Defend Clean Water Act by Judson Parker

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s “see-no-evil” posture on federal law barring appointment of state permit issuers with recent financial ties to regulated industry has effectively gutted the Clean Water Act's key anti-conflict safeguard, according to a group of environmental advocacy organizations.

The organizations, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), the Florida Clean Water Network, and the Androscoggin River Alliance, say EPA is ignoring blatant violations of this important protection and thereby encourages states to violate it, pointing to two recent cases: In Florida, EPA has dithered for nearly a year without action. In Maine, the administrator resigned due to a parallel state law which has since been weakened while EPA stayed silent.

The federal Clean Water Act bars appointment of any state decision-maker on pollution discharge permits who “has during the previous two years received a significant portion of his income directly or indirectly from permit holders or applicants for a permit.” Nonetheless, at least two states have recently done just that. Both conflicted environmental nominees were confirmed and then challenged by environmental groups; one was ousted and one remains but in both cases EPA remained on the sideline.

Nearly a year ago, on February 23, 2011, PEER and Florida Clean Water Network filed a legal complaint with EPA that Herschel Vinyard, Florida’s environmental secretary, and another top appointee should be legally barred from issuing water pollution permits due to Vinyard’s prior employment on behalf of shipyards. The groups even submitted Vinyard’s sworn filings that he had worked for a regulated industry immediately prior to his appointment as Secretary of the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). 

In the ensuing months, EPA has issued three status letters, each more noncommittal than its predecessor.  The last letter from EPA Regional Administrator Gwendolyn Keyes-Fleming on January 19, 2012 states:

“We are continuing to evaluate the information included with your letter, and the significant issues raised by that information. In light of the significant issues raised, we are coordinating our response on the matter with appropriate staff and management, both within the EPA Region 4 and offices in EPA’s Headquarters.”
read more@examiner.com