Love That Dirty Water

The solution, of course, is for Congress to reaffirm its intent of cleansing and protecting all waters of the United States. As Rep. James Oberstar (D-MN) observes, “The opening paragraph [of the Clean Water Act] says the purpose is to ‘restore and maintain the biological, chemical and physical integrity of the nation’s waters.’It doesn’t say the nation’s navigable waters.”

Accordingly, Oberstar and Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) introduced the Clean Water Restoration Act which would do exactly what its title says—“restore” the act by stating in language sufficiently specific to insulate it once and for all from purposeful or accidental misinterpretation by hostile or linguistically challenged bureaucrats and judges. In no way would the legislation change or broaden the Clean Water Act. It would merely restore it to pre-SWANCC condition.

The bill has failed every session since 2003. Up until 2006 it failed because the Republicans, who then controlled Congress, wouldn’t give it a hearing. In the 110th Congress (2007 and 2008) it failed because, suddenly, the homebuilders, stockgrowers, miners, water diverters, property-rights groups, Farm Bureau federations and ultra-conservative think tanks saw that it actually had a chance and lobbied the bejesus out of Congress.

Which sportsmen and sportsmen’s groups support this measure? Well, every intelligent, effective, legitimate one. Solidly on board and pushing hard are: Trout Unlimited, Ducks Unlimited, National Wildlife Federation, Izaak Walton League, Wildlife Forever, Pheasants Forever, Wildlife Management Institute, Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, Orion-The Hunter’s Institute, International Game Fish Association, American Sportfishing Association, American Fisheries Society, Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, to mention just a few. Even the National Trappers Association supports the bill.

Then there are the enlightened outdoor writers who tell their readers not just “how to do it” and “where to go” but how to make sure they and their kids can keep doing and going. There are dozens of examples (many close friends), but I’ll single out one I know only by his fine copy, Babe Winkelman, because he reaches a huge audience, a good part of it comprised of conservative elements especially in need of education. Writes Winkelman: “During the Bush years, many Democrats have said they support the Clean Water Restoration Act. Now it’s time for them to prove it.”

Alas, other outdoor writers, sportsmen and sportsmen’s groups have allowed themselves to be body-snatched by polluters and property-rights crazies. When I Googled “Clean Water Restoration Act,” “fishermen” and “hunters” I was distressed and disgusted to see that the entire first page, all 10 hits, were reprints or variations of a perfidious screed entitled “Sportsmen: Beware the Clean Water Restoration Act” being fired around the nation by a radical, anti-environmental think tank called the National Center for Public Policy Research whose Washington, D.C.–bound propagandists wouldn’t know a trout from a pout.

“In the past none of us took sportsmen’s opposition all that seriously,” declares Jan Goldman-Carter, the National Wildlife Federation attorney in charge of wetlands and water. “But recently we’ve been hearing about someone named Remington out there blogging. We’re trying to figure out how to respond to this.”

Goldman-Carter is referring to outdoor writer, sportsman and self-proclaimed fish-and-wildlife advocate Tom Remington of Clearwater, Florida. In addition to his “Open Air with Tom Remington” radio broadcasts and his frenetic blogging on hunting and fishing Web sites, he co-administers U.S. Hunting Today, a national online magazine picked up by affiliates in 41 states. Between long, rambling harangues about wolves, the Endangered Species Act and other alleged outrages, Remington pumps BS about the Clean Water Restoration Act into the ears and hard drives of his listeners and readers. His single source appears to be the National Center for Public Policy Research. Sometimes he adds his own disinformation and sometimes he regurgitates the center’s verbatim.

Herewith, from the center and shoveled to America’s sportsmen by Remington, a few examples:

• “The construction of fishing piers and boat docks, which can already require a permit under the CWA, would likely see enhanced scrutiny under the CWRA. Such construction could be regulated in nearly every instance, as nearly every body of water would qualify for federal oversight. This means trout and smallmouth bass fishermen could lose access to their favorite rivers and streams, as wading in these waters necessarily disturbs rocks and sediment, and therefore could be considered harmful to fish and other wildlife. Lead lures, sinkers or split-shot could be deemed pollutants. Recreational boating could be restricted or banned in certain waters due to the incidental discharge of engine cooling water, bilge water, deck runoff or ballast water.”