Letter to the Editor: Nation must abandon ‘progressive Democratic agenda’ or risk economic ruin

web1_excercise-.jpg

Prime Time Health announces February class times

<p>Congressman Lou Barletta&#8217;s recent <a href="https://www.timesleader.com/opinion/columns/506065/u-s-rep-lou-barletta-epas-rule-muddies-water-for-farmers-and-home-builders" target="_blank">commentary</a> on the Clean Water Act contains so much misinformation that I scarcely know where to begin.</p><p>The Environmental Protection Agency&#8217;s rule does only one thing: It restores protection to thousands of miles of headwater streams and over 20 million acres of the nation&#8217;s wetlands that was in place for 31 years before the regulations were changed in 2003 by an administration unfriendly to clean water standards.</p><p>Prior to the Clean Water Act passage in 1972, pollution discharges were either largely unregulated, or regulated at the point the pollution discharged into a large river or lake. Back then, Time magazine proclaimed Ohio&#8217;s Cuyahoga River, the one that caught fire, to be among the most polluted in the country. The magazine lamented: &#8220;Some river! Chocolate-brown, oily, bubbling with subsurface gases, it oozes rather than flows. &#8216;Anyone who falls into the Cuyahoga does not drown,&#8217; Cleveland&#8217;s citizens joke grimly. &#8216;He decays.&#8217;&#8221;</p><p>But the Cuyahoga River was only the poster child for polluted water. Most of the nation&#8217;s rivers were so fouled they were not safe for fish or humans. Fueled by public outrage, 96 Republicans joined 151 Democrats to override President Richard Nixon&#8217;s veto to pass the Clean Water Act. The act protected the nation&#8217;s wetlands and streams all the way to the headwaters, because we all knew that most pollution did not come from the end of a discharge pipe; it came from the upper headwaters.</p><p>So for the next 31 years, the nation began the long process of restoring the chemical, physical and biological integrity of our lakes and rivers. The act&#8217;s regulations prove that protecting water quality and economic prosperity can go hand in hand. Since its passage in 1972, our gross domestic product has doubled. Clearly, we have all benefited from having clean water.</p><p>Despite the Clean Water Act&#8217;s clear societal and economic benefits, the Bush administration changed the regulations in 2003, which eliminated federal protection for headwater streams and so-called isolated wetlands. The EPA estimated that the rule change eliminated protection for more than 46,000 miles of Pennsylvania&#8217;s headwater streams and over half of its vegetated wetlands. These small headwater streams are where over 30 percent of Pennsylvanians get their drinking water and are the foundation of our fine trout streams, providing huge economic benefits for industry, recreation and wildlife.</p><p>Rep. Barletta&#8217;s claim that pulling weeds and building fences could be a regulated activity under the act is just nonsense, as is his claim that EPA&#8217;s rule is a significant expansion of federal jurisdiction. The rule simply restores federal protection that was in place for 31 years until the Bush administration changed the regulations. In fact, the new rule protects fewer wetlands than the original act.</p><p>Despite the fact that there has been no federal protection for headwater streams and so-called isolated wetlands since 2003, there has been no change in protection in Pennsylvania because the state Department of Environmental Protection&#8217;s regulations are not only more encompassing than the federal program, they have the exact same definition as to what constitutes a wetland &#8211; and it does not include mud puddles. It is for this reason that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and EPA have delegated almost all the permitting authority to the state&#8217;s DEP and have been working with it for the past 35 years to protect the commonwealth&#8217;s water resources.</p><p>In other words, EPA&#8217;s new rule changes absolutely nothing in Pennsylvania because the state&#8217;s program has mirrored the federal program for 35 years.</p><p>The big change will be in states that don&#8217;t have a strong water quality protection program like Pennsylvania does. In those states, EPA&#8217;s rule will once again protect the millions of acres of wetlands and thousands of miles of headwater streams that developers have been busy filling and dredging since the 2003 rule change.</p><p>Our country is incredibly fortunate that back in 1972 our elected representatives recognized that our economy, our very way of life, is inextricably tied to clean water. The same Cuyahoga River that once caught on fire now supports an annual run of salmon.</p><p>Despite the benefits to our economy, our wildlife and our drinking water, every Pennsylvania Republican representative voted with almost all their Republican colleagues to oppose EPA&#8217;s rule. How has it come to pass that something that was recognized as being so vital to our national interest and was passed with overwhelming bipartisan support in 1972 is now opposed by the entire Pennsylvania Republican congressional delegation, including Congressmen Barletta and Tom Marino?</p><p>We should expect more concern for clean water from our elected representatives, but we won&#8217;t get it unless they hear from you.</p><style>
.neFileBlock {
	margin-bottom: 20px;
}
.neFileBlock p {
	margin: 0px 0px 0px 0px;
}
.neFileBlock .neFile {
	border-bottom: 1px dotted #aaa;
	padding-bottom: 5px;
	padding-top: 10px;
}
.neFileBlock .neCaption {
	font-size: 85%;
}
</style>
<div class='neFileBlock'>
<div class="neFile"><img class="neImage" src="https://www.timesleader.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/web1_Ed-Perry.jpg">
<div class="neCaption"></div></div><div class="metaInfo"><photo0>https://www.timesleader.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/web1_Ed-Perry.jpg</photo0><caption0></caption0><photoCredit0></photoCredit0></div></div>
<div class="metaInfo"><bylineMeta><p>Ed Perry</p><p>Contributing Columnist</p></bylineMeta></div><div class="metaInfo"><shirttailMeta><p>Ed Perry, a Boalsburg resident, is a lifelong fisherman and hunter and works for the National Wildlife Federation on its <a href="http://www.nwf.org/What-We-Do/Energy-and-Climate.aspx" target="_blank">climate change campaign</a>.</p></shirttailMeta></div>

Ed Perry: Column on Clean Water Act misportrayed its impact on Pennsylvania streams