![](media/image1.png){width="6.500694444444444in"
height="1.207638888888889in"}![](media/image2.wmf) 

**Permit for a Puddle?:**

**Government's Attempt to Regulate Your Water**

***By Barbara Cubin***

Far too often, career politicians in Washington get so caught up in the
nitty gritty of legislation, they completely lose sight of why the
government exists in the first place. President Reagan used to say that
"Government's first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives."
The Clean Water Authority Restoration Act of 2007 (H.R. 2421) is a
perfect example of bureaucrats forgetting what the federal government's
role should be. H.R. 2421 would extend the federal government's
jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act (CWA) to all "waters of the
United States," and in doing so, would extend its reach to almost any
drop of water in our state.

The most frightening aspect of this bill is that no one really knows
what its real impact would be. Under current law, federal jurisdiction
under the CWA is limited to "navigable waters." For all other waters,
management decisions are left where they should be -- in the capable
hands of the states. Due to the new bill's vague definition of what
"waters of the United States" entails, the likely result of the measure
would be to burden local communities and private property owners with
additional cumbersome regulations. Prior converted croplands (PCCs),
treatment ponds, and local water infrastructure projects could all be
swept under the permitting requirements of the CWA. The federal
government has no place in regulating every pond, creek, or mud puddle
within an individual state -- particularly on private property. In fact,
Section 101(b) of the CWA itself clearly clarifies Congress' intent that
states maintain the primary responsibility for land and water decisions
within their borders. H.R. 2421 raises serious states-rights concerns
the bill sponsors have not addressed.

The fact of the matter is expanding the federal government's
jurisdiction over approved uses on our nation's waterways has an untold
number of consequences. That's why I have heard from numerous groups,
including the Wyoming Association of Rural Water Systems, the National
Water Resources Association, the Western Business Roundtable, and
numerous agriculture producers in Wyoming that such a broad expansion of
the CWA would significantly affect their ability to manage water
resources in the West. I opposed this bill when it was first introduced
and still advocate against it today because it fails to strike a
reasonable balance between environmental protections and private
land-use rights. Instead, this bill creates unnecessary burdens on the
very people which it intends to help.

The bill's title makes it appear that if you oppose this bill you oppose
efforts to secure clean water. Nothing could be further from the truth.
We all support clean water. Every community in the U.S. deserves to have
access to clean water. The point of disagreement occurs when we ask how
we secure this goal.

Another favorite saying of President Reagan's was that "the most
terrifying words in the English language are, 'I am from the government
and I am here to help.'" Unfortunately, this bill as it is currently
written proves the Gipper's point.

\###