Outdoor groups back expanded Clean Water Act

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

Advertisements

2 Responses to Outdoor groups back expanded Clean Water Act

  1. ahrcanum says:

    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.

    • tomkrol says:

      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.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: