(Host) Vermont’s senators are pushing for a bill that they say will ensure federal protection for water quality and biodiversity around Lake Champlain.
Eric Niiler has the story.
(Niiler) The bill is being debated in the Senate Environment Committee. It is designed to reverse two Supreme Court rulings that define the Clean Water Act as protecting only "navigable" waterways.
That covers streams that flow year-round and their nearby wetlands. A federal study shows that about 17 percent of Vermont’s wetlands are now left out of federal safeguards.
Independent Senator Bernie Sanders has joined a group of Democrats to put the waterways back under protection.
(Sanders) "They could become polluted, we’ve got to prevent that. All that this legislation does it to say, let’s go back to where we were."
(Niiler) Vermont’s other Senator, Democrat Patrick Leahy, is also a co-sponsor. Governor James Douglas has written a letter to Congress supporting the bill.
Its backers say they simply want to restore the Clean Water Act to its original intent. Alexander Grannis is a commissioner of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. He says that the weakened Clean Water Act leaves most tributaries of Lake Champlain and their adjacent wetlands open to pollution.
(Grannis) "Our greatest fear is that once wetlands and the biodiversity which they foster are lost, it may be difficult, if not downright impossible, to reestablish them."
(Niiler) Opponents argue that the Clean Water Act was intended to have narrow coverage. Here’s the top Republican in the Environment Committee, Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe.
(Inhofe) "For example, individual property owners could have a small depression in their field or yard that can collect water after a good rain. If this bill passes, those waters become jurisdictional, and all activities that could affect that depression would have to go under the permitting."
(Niiler) Carol Browner directed the Environmental Protection Agency under President Clinton. She says Inhofe is exaggerating.
(Browner) "A puddle does not have the kind of vegetation, does not provide habitat, does not contribute to aquifer recharge. Therefore, it is not covered under the bill."
(Niiler) Browner also says Democratic, as well as Republican administrations, had protected seasonal streams and wetlands for 30 years before the court rulings. Still, Wyoming Republican Senator John Barrasso says the country doesn’t need any more federal bureaucracy.
(Barrasso) "The bureaucracy will increase delays in securing permits, and that will slow or stop vital economic activities all across the country.”
(Niiler) Senator Sanders says that argument is short-sighted.
(Sanders) "In terms of cost, you tell me, what is the cost to America, if tens and tens of millions of people do not have clean drinking water?"
(Niiler) The fate of the bill rests largely with Montana Senator Max Baucus, who’s the swing vote on the committee. Even though he’s a Democrat, Baucus says he’s concerned about its cost for farmers and ranchers in his home state.
For VPR News, I’m Eric Niiler on Capitol Hill.