By GARY HARMON/The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel
Monday, May 25, 2009
Several sporting and conservation groups put a high priority on winning approval of the Clean Water Restoration Act.
Trout Unlimited, Ducks Unlimited, the Teddy Roosevelt Conservation Partnership and the National Wildlife Federation all list the measure, S 787 by Russ Feingold, D-Wis., as a major issue.
Opponents say the bill is prelude to a federal government overreach.
The bill would expand federal control to all the waters of the United States: interstate waters, intrastate lakes, rivers, streams, wetlands, mud flats, sand flats, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playas and natural ponds, as well as tributaries to those waters.
Proponents of the measure say it would restore protections included in the 1972 Clean Water Act, which have since been torn down by court rulings.
The Trout Unlimited Web site said the act “would protect 20 million acres of wetlands and 2 million miles of rivers and streams that have lost protection in recent years because of misguided court rulings.”
http://www.gjsentinel.com/hp/content/news/stories/2009/05/25/052609_2A_Clean_Water_folo.html
June 2, 2009 at 5:42 pm |
The outdoor groups do not necessarily own any land so why not accept government’s seizure and control? Government over reach is hardly what I would describe as control.
June 5, 2009 at 9:44 am |
A great many people who belong to “outdoor groups” are landowners, but that’s beside the point. The water is owned by the state of Colorado (although a lot of people don’t think the way the state distributes it to rights holders makes as much sense as it did in 1880). Water – groundwater and water in streams tends to move – from property to propety – including yours when you drink it or put it on your lawn. Regulations such as the Clean Water Act are supposed to protect us, as well as fish and wildlife. Is government action to stop a polluter from killing a stream “seizure”? I don’t think so.