

For More Information,
Please Contact: NORM SEMANKO, (208) 863-7921, norm@iwua.org
A Western water leader will tell a Congressional
subcommittee tomorrow in the nation’s capital that proposed legislation
revising the Clean Water Act (CWA) will create more problems rather than
solving a wide range of problems with the Act that already exist.
Semanko’s testimony puts the
“Significant problems are already
being encountered by water providers with the existing Act and these challenges
are expected to continue,” said Semanko, whose written testimony is available
on the IWUA web site: www.iwua.org.
Semanko will cite a variety of
crucial reasons why the proposed revision of the CWA should be blocked. The
proposed legislation is supposed to reaffirm the original intent of the CWA, to
end legal wrangling about what Congress meant when it passed the CWA in 1972, and
to prevent the judicial branch from rewriting or redefining the scope and
application of the CWA. Semanko believes the CWRA fai
“CWRA ignores the Congressional
intent underlying the CWA and will give rise to more litigation, not less,”
said Semanko.
Representatives from
-
O V E R -
“The case for expanding federal
jurisdiction through the proposed legislation has been greatly exaggerated,”
said
Agricultural water users fear that
the proposed legislation would have disastrous impacts on agricultural and
municipal water supply activities.
“The CWRA will extend jurisdiction
to virtually all agricultural irrigation facilities, subjecting them to water
quality standards the facilities were not designed for and are not operated to
support,” said
One of the stated purposes of CWRA
is to “clearly define” the scope of CWA jurisdiction. To accomplish this
goal, however, the bill proposes to assert jurisdiction over “all interstate and
intrastate waters.” I
“The proposed bill does not clearly
define jurisdiction, introduces new uncertainties and ambiguities that will
ultimately need to be resolved through more, not less, litigation,” said
Semanko.
Semanko will conclude his testimony
by telling legislators that significant problems are already being encountered
by water providers with the existing Clean Water Act and these challenges are
expected to continue.
The Family Farm Alliance and the
National Water Resources Association strongly oppose the CWRA because it is
unconstitutional, unnecessarily and unjustifiably expands federal jurisdiction
over intrastate waters, and would have significant adverse impacts upon
agricultural and municipal water providers.
“We urge clarity, not expansion of
the Clean Water Act,” said Semanko.
The
Family Farm
- # # # # -