If you want to get conservative rural voters riled up, nothing works better than warning them of an impending “government takeover.”
The 2nd District’s own Rep. Greg Walden understands the tactic well, and he’s using it to muster the troops against legislation that would clarify the federal Clean Water Act.
Passed in 1972, the act gives the federal government authority to prevent pollution of “navigable” waters in the United States. For the first 30 years of the act’s existence, “navigable” was interpreted broadly. But a couple of Supreme Court decisions since 2001 have held that it applies only to major rivers, lakes and other truly “navigable” waterways.
In practice, that means polluters only have to go upstream to a point where a waterway isn’t “navigable” and they can dump gunk into it without fear of federal action.
“Because of the Supreme Court decisions, companies have spilled oil, carcinogens and bacteria into the lakes, rivers and other waters without being fined or prosecuted,” Rep. James Oberstar (D-MN), chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, told the Washington Times.
Clean Water Action, a group that supports reform of the act, claims that the water supplies of 110 million Americans are in danger if an amendment to the Clean Water Act backed by Oberstar and other lawmakers of both parties isn’t passed. “In just one year more than 500 enforcement cases have been dropped by the federal Environmental Protection Agency and Justice Department” because of the new, more stringent interpretation of the act, its website says.
But Walden and other conservative members of Congress, mostly from rural areas, are ganging up to try to kill the amendment.
In a press release earlier this month, Walden invoked the bogeyman of a “federal takeover” of the nation’s water – not just once, but four times. The amendment, he said, amounts to “an unprecedented federal government takeover of water in Oregon, from ponds to irrigation ditches, that would put the federal government in charge. … This is [a] top-down Washington, D.C.-driven federal takeover of our water rights.”
Of course, the Clean Water Act amendment isn’t a “federal takeover” of water, any more than the very limited health care reform legislation passed by Congress is a “federal takeover” of health care. It would simply clarify the federal government’s power to stop people from polluting water supplies, a power it exercised for 30 years.
Walden’s scary rhetoric is dishonest, and I’m sure he knows it. But raising the specter of oppressive “big gummint” and pretending to be bravely battling against it always plays well with the GOP’s hard-right “base.”
Clean Water Action urges people to contact their representatives in Congress to urge them to support the Oberstar amendment. It would be pointless to ask Walden to support it; his mind is made up. But it might be fun to ask him to explain why he’s supporting the right to pollute over the right of Americans to have clean water. E-mail him here.
This article appears in May 13-19, 2010.
MAKE LOCAL JOURNALISM HAPPEN
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
Miller,
You couldn’t be more wrong. I guess you liberals think that rhetoric makes up for substance. Walden is defending jurisdictional rights per a very old contract, call the U.S. Constitution. It is a contract between 3 parties: individuals, states, and the Federal government (which is, by the way too big and getting bigger). States have jurisdictional rights over everything that isn’t interstate commerce–it’s that simple. You liberals may not like it; you may loathe it; but that’s the contract.
Walden is defending our state’s constitutional jurisdiction. Your personal projection and extrapolation over what you call “the right to pollute” is your personal interpretation, and I’m confident that Walden doesn’t want to pollute this beautiful land anymore than you or I do.
In other words, pure and simple, you’re discounting the value of the contract with the government–the Constitution (even though it gives you a voice–think about that), and you’re making an unfounded accusation.
It’s what you liberals do. You deny the truth and try create new versions of it, just like your Liberal In Chief, Mr. BHO.
Marty
Thank you Rep Walden for standing up for Americans right to pollute. This may be the last chance for true Americans to stop socalism. God Bless you Greg for defending democracy from those who would prevent us doing what we plase with our water. We all know that this “pollution is bad for the planet” stuff is just liberal trash talk. I know that ’cause Rush told me so.
I would like to say more, but I’m off to a joint meeting of the Tea Party and the Flat Earth Society. Keep up the good work!
Your left leaning article is pretty apparent for what it is.You “scare” by saying all of our water is in jeopardy,when in fact,the only impact of not allowing the bill to pass is that the federal “gummit” won’t be able to pursue and prosecute farmers and ranchers whose irrigation pumps may leak small amounts oil into their irrigation ponds or ditches.State and federal laws cover EVERY other waterway that is public,or private that runs into a public waterway.What you have done is shown your colors as a biased news source,and turned a topic around to make your own stance seem like the logical one.
Well now Mr Miller… the picture next to your name is Karl Marx a revolutionary in the communist movement. This picture explains two things about you, you seem to idolize socialist views and you must have been drunk on vodka when you wrote this pile of crap article for the Source.
The federal government doesn’t belong in our State let alone every waterway within it. You make it seem as though conservatives are lined up to pollute our waterways and Greg Waldon is leading the way. By definition conservatives are conservationists and they love clean water, streams, rivers and lakes… remember that’s where we live, play and work.
What we see is a gradual takeover of every aspect of our lives by the Federal government when they in fact do not belong within our State borders. We have State rights, a state constitution and we shouldn’t depend on Federal bribery money for our State Laws and policy making.
How about we all decide to be fiscal conservatives? Our county is in trouble because of our last 20 presidents, a corrupt Federal Reserve system and a controlled media hell bent on keeping our people divided.
I have solved the matrix and I am sad to tell you propaganda is what spews from the mouths of most news sources including this magazine The Source of Marxist garbage. Other propaganda is fed to us from FOX,CNN,MSNBC and so on which keeps us divided depending on your views or what class or group they feel you fit into.
We The People should be smarter..Mr Miller you actually do a great disservice to our community.. descent liberals actually read your lies and believe them.
Here are a couple ideas that I think would change our country for the better.
End the Federal Reserve.. its corrupt.
Make lobbyist illegal.
Make the News report the news.. not propaganda right and left.
End all wars and conflicts.
Enforce strong borders.
Remove ALL federal agencies from our States.
End foreign campaign contributions.
Mr Miller if you idolize Karl Marx so much you are in the wrong country.
“By definition conservatives are conservationists…”
My oh my, I haven’t had that good of a laugh in a long while.
“Mr Miller if you idolize Karl Marx so much you are in the wrong country.”
Duh, I put that picture up there as a joke after being called a socialist/Marxist/communist (terms that are NOT interchangeable, though right-wingers think they are) a few dozen times. I do not “idolize” Karl Marx — or Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, Castro, Mao or Ho Chi Minh either.
You choose to write your first comment about the tweaking done by Baker, but why have you not commented on the thoughts of Marty2010 or Reed who make some very excellent points? Excuse me, I’m sorry. I just answered my own question. Never mind.
Critic: I’m not obligated to respond to every comment posted. Hanging out here seems to be a full-time job for you, but it isn’t for me.
However: Marty’s “states’ rights” argument was demolished in 1865. Reed’s claim that the only sources of pollution the amended act would cover are farmers’ stock ponds and irrigation ditches is just BS.
HBM-
Do you really beleive this BS? I am a “right winger”, and a naturalist, and die hard fly fisher. I am as worried as anyone about the purity of our streams. And to incinuate that we are just out to destroy all clean water is absurd! You aught to be ashamed of yourself for writing this crap. Luckily for us, anyone in thier right mind that reads your liberal drivel……knows it’s just that. Keep pushing your views thru slanted writing, and we’ll all keep laughing at you. DB!
“And to incinuate [sic] that we are just out to destroy all clean water is absurd!”
That would be absurd, but it’s not what I’m saying. What I’m saying is that if the loophole created in the Clean Water Act by two Supreme Court decisions isn’t plugged, a lot more water will get polluted.
I think the key point here that many commentors are missing is that the Oberstar amendment would simply codify in better legalese the Clean Water Act regulations that have been implemented and enforced for decades. It’s not some sweeping new piece of legislation that significantly broadens the federal government’s authority, all it does is clarify the government’s interpretation of the CWA that it has had since the CWA was enacted, up until the Supreme Court decision that put that interpretation in doubt. That 2001 ruling found that the CWA legislation, as written, did not provide sufficient clarity on the subject of which “waters of the United States” fell under the purview of the original legislation. The Oberstar amendment simply provides such clarity, and does not expand the federal government’s authority to anything more than what it was before the court ruling.
nwhippie: Thank you for that excellent, clear explanation.
where are your liberal buddies hbm? all your comments are from dedicated americans who care about their country?You are a lone wolf sorry communism and socialism are very unpopular in central oregon
eugene–
You’re right! I looked around and could not find any examples of a communist or socialist system here in CO. They are as scarce as rational thought, good grammar, and correct spelling and punctuation in your missives.