“Montanans shouldn’t have to fill out a bunch of federal forms for every single ditch, creek, and puddle on their property,” said Rehberg, a rancher and member of the House Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee.  “Unfortunately for agriculture, outdoor recreation, private property owners, and our construction industry, the Clean Water Restoration Act equals one big bureaucratic mess.  This bill is bad for Montana and it's disappointing to see Governor Schweitzer gave it his stamp of approval.”

Originally enacted in 1948, the Clean Water Act created federal standards for controlling and mitigating pollution on ‘navigable’ waters within the United States.  The Clean Water Restoration Act, introduced by Congressman James Oberstar (D-MN), would remove the word ‘navigable’ effectively making all Montana waters subject to federal control and regulation. 

In a letter to Rehberg in June of 2007, Schweitzer announced his support of the legislation and asked Rehberg to become a cosponsor of the bill.  Later, during a July 2007 hearing before the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Governor Schweitzer testified in support of the Clean Water Act stating “Passage of the Clean Water Authority Restoration Act is the best way to ensure that all of the water resources in Montana remain fully protected, reaffirm Congress’ original intent to eliminate pollution at its source, and restore clarity and certainty to the law we and most other states rely upon to limit water pollution.” 

Today, Rehberg joined private property owners and several Montana agriculture, construction, and outdoor recreation organizations in opposition to the Schweitzer-backed bill.

“While you may not believe this is the intent of the Clean Water Restoration Act of 2007, the harsh reality is that these new regulations will result in extensive litigation and increased compliance costs for folks who make their living off the land,” Rehberg said in the letter to Schweitzer.  “That's why I'm joining with the local organizations in saying to those of you who support the effort to federalize Montana's water: ‘no, nope, no way, hell no’.”   

To see a copy of Governor Schweitzer’s testimony and his letter to Rehberg, please click on the links below:

Letter:

http://www.house.gov/rehberg/files/SchweitzerLetter.pdf

Testimony:

http://www.house.gov/rehberg/files/SchweitzerTestimony.pdf

Below is Rehberg’s letter:

May 21, 2008

The Honorable Brian Schweitzer

Governor of the State of Montana

1301 East 6^th Avenue

Helena, MT 59601

Dear Governor Schweitzer:

I am writing today to express my disappointment at your decision to support H.R. 2421, the Clean Water Restoration Act of 2007.  In Montana, we're fond of saying "whiskey’s for drinking and water’s for fighting”.  Make no mistake about it, I strongly oppose this bill and there are a whole bunch of us here in Montana who are going to fight it every step of the way. 

On July 17, 2007, you appeared before the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and testified in favor of H.R. 2421, which would expand the federal government’s jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act to include all waters in the United States, including water in the state of Montana.  In your written testimony you stated:

“Passage of the Clean Water Authority Restoration Act is the best way to ensure that all of the water resources in Montana remain fully protected, reaffirm Congress’ original intent to eliminate pollution at its source, and restore clarity and certainty to the law we and most other states rely upon to limit water pollution.” 

Additionally, in both your written and oral testimony, you encouraged Members of Congress to cosponsor and support this harmful legislation.  With your testimony, you essentially set out the welcome mat for bureaucrats to bring their reams of red-tape into Montana and federalize our water.  Governor, your support of this bill is just plain wrong for Montana. 

The Clean Water Act is a comprehensive law that has resulted in significant improvements to our nation’s water quality and management practices.  However, expanding the definition of water from an already broad interpretation of “navigable” (the term currently used in the Clean Water Act) to the all-encompassing “waters of the United States” (which H.R. 2421 would do) will give greater control over Montana's water to the Environmental Protection Agency and the United States Army Corps of Engineers, and will add uncertainty for private landowners and Montanans trying to make a living off the land. 

Unfortunately for Montana, in your oral testimony before the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, you endorsed the idea of removing the term “navigable” from the Clean Water Act, stating:

“Let us talk about this bill.  To use as the barometer as to whether we are going to manage this water for clean water as to whether it is navigable or not is ludicrous.” 

Later in your testimony, when asked by Congressman Gilchrest if you were opposed to taking the word “navigable” out of the Clean Water Act you were even more specific, responding:

“Actually, I think the term navigable, has no place in deciding a bill about clean water because it doesn’t define those places that are actually filtration systems.”

To be fair, it seems that in general you at least have some sense of the inherent problems associated with turning over management of our water to the federal government, because at one point in your testimony you stated:

“We don’t want to put the Federal Government in the position of managing our waterways all the way to the Rocky Mountains.” 

Unfortunately, this legislation will do exactly that by allowing the long-arm of the federal government to reach out and take over the management of Montana's water.  In fact, you need look no further than the definition of "water of the United States" found in section 4(3) of H.R. 2421:

“All waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide, the territorial seas, and all interstate and intrastate water and their tributaries, including lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, natural ponds, and all impoundments of the foregoing, to the fullest extent that these waters, or activities affecting these waters, are subject to the legislative power of Congress under the Constitution.” 

The intent of this bill couldn't be clearer: to give the federal government control over our water.  We Montanans take pride in our land management practices, and rightly so.  This legislation will only serve to create more paperwork, headaches and expense and will undermine the good environmental stewardship already taking place in our state.  Folks in the agriculture industry, and all private property owners, may be subject to additional federal permits under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, or under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, just for normal day-to-day operations. 

While you may not believe this is the intent of the Clean Water Restoration Act of 2007, the harsh reality is that these new regulations will result in extensive litigation and increased compliance costs for folks who make their living off the land.  That's why I'm joining with the Montana Stockgrowers Association, Citizens for Balanced Use, Montana Contractors Association, Montana Farm Bureau Federation, Montanans for Multiple Use, Treasure State Alliance, Montana Wood Products Association, Montana Agricultural Business Association, Montana Grain Growers Association, United Property Owners of Montana and Families for Outdoor Recreation in saying to those of you who support the effort to federalize Montana's water: “no, nope, no way, hell no”.  

Sincerely,

Denny Rehberg

Montana’s Congressman