 |
|||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
| The Arizona Cattlemen's Association Industry News - H.R.2421 | |||||||||||||
| "ACA expresses concern about Governor Napolitano's support for H.R. 2421, Legislation introduced in Congress to drastically expand federal authority over Arizona's stockponds and other waters." Dear Governor Napolitano: We are in receipt of your letter (copy attached) to Arizona's Congressional Delegation regarding H.R. 2421, The Clean Water Restoration Act of 2007 and provide the following comments regarding flaws in the legislation. The ACA opposes the legislation because it provides for an unprecedented expansion of federal authority over Arizona waters by removing the word "navigable" from the Clean Water Act definition of waters of the United States and replacing it with simply "waters of the United States." This new definition would grant the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers virtually unlimited regulatory control over all wet areas within a state by providing unequivocally that "all interstate and intrastate waters and their tributaries" are subject to CWA regulation "including lakes, rivers, streams, (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, natural ponds"" As there are no recognized exclusions, the definition could easily be interpreted to cover groundwater, ditches, pipes, streets, gutters, manmade ponds, ephemeral drainages, wet farmland, drain tiles, treatment ponds, and other wet areas. This broadening will denigrate the State of Arizona's authority, over these previously only "state-regulated", waters within the boundaries of Arizona. In addition, the legislation would for the first time regulate virtually all "activities" that may affect waters of the United States by authorizing regulation to the fullest extent that these waters, or activities affecting these waters, are subject to the legislative power of Congress under the Constitution. The definition of "activities affecting these waters" does not exist under current law, regulations, or the proposed legislation. It, therefore, provides significant opportunity for any activist to use the Clean Water Act's citizen suit provisions to stop anything they perceive as affecting waters of the United States, including the use of irrigation. These and other flaws in the legislation clearly grant the federal government a much expanded role in regulating Arizona's water –an effort which the state should oppose in order to protect our water and its use. |
|||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
