Yesterday the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee approved H.R. 2018, the “Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act of 2011.” Environmental groups have dubbed this legislation the “Dirty Water Bill of 2011.” Iowa Democrat Leonard Boswell was in the majority that approved the bill 35 to 19, even though no the committee held no public hearings to determine the bill’s impact on water pollution. The roll call (pdf) shows that 30 Republicans and five Democrats voted yes, while 18 Democrats and one Republican voted no.

H.R. 2018 would amend the Clean Water Act “to preserve the authority of each State to make determinations relating to the State’s water quality standards, and for other purposes.” The House Transportation Committee says the bill “restricts EPA’s ability to second-guess or delay a state’s permitting and water quality certification decisions under the CWA after the federal agency has already approved a state’s program.” So, in states where major polluting industries have political clout, citizens would lose federal water quality protections. As Kate Sheppard observes, “In practice this would mean each individual state gets oversight over water policy, taking us back to the days of the Cuyahoga River fire and Love Canal, before Congress passed a federal law in 1972.”

Members of Congress introduced this bill last month in response to draft guidelines that the Environmental Protection Agency and Army Corps of Engineers released in April. Those guidelines were designed to address two Supreme Court rulings from the past decade, which “narrowly interpreted the scope of waters covered by the [Clean Water] Act, putting in doubt pollution safeguards for many vital wetlands, lakes and streams.” Click here for more background on those court rulings.

Boswell is the only Iowan currently serving on the transportation committee. His office did not release a statement on H.R. 2018 and has not yet responded to my request for comment on why he voted for this bill. I will update this post with Boswell’s explanation if and when I receive it. The EPA has said that agricultural runoff is the biggest source of pollution in U.S. waterways. Boswell’s voting record has generally aligned with agribusiness interests, and it’s been obvious for decades that Iowa policy-makers have failed to adequately control agricultural pollution.

Eight-term incumbent Boswell faces a tough re-election contest next year against nine-term Republican Representative Tom Latham in the Iowa’s new third Congressional district. It’s a relatively balanced district in terms of voter registration, but Latham is likely to have much more money to spend on his campaign. To win another term, Boswell will need to outperform the top of the Democratic ticket in rural areas of the new IA-03.

After the jump I’ve posted the full text of H.R. 2018, along with a Sierra Club statement describing it as “the most significant weakening of the Clean Water Act since Congress enacted comprehensive federal clean water legislation in 1972.” During yesterday’s committee meeting, Democrat Tim Bishop of New York offered an amendment seeking to neutralize this bill. His amendment stated that none of the provisions in the Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act “would apply to waters that are a source for public drinking water, provide flood protection, are a valuable fish and wildlife habitat, or are coastal recreational waters.” The committee defeated his amendment by voice vote.

FRIDAY UPDATE: Still no comment from Boswell’s office on this vote. I have added below the House Transportation Committee’s summary of H.R. 2018.

Excerpt from a House Transportation Committee press release of June 22:

Summary of the “Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act of 2011”

State Water Quality Standards

H.R. 2018 provides common sense protections for states’ EPA-approved water quality standards and permitting authority under the CWA. Without these protections, state regulation, as approved by EPA, can still be usurped by the agency at every turn, creating a climate for regulatory uncertainty and endless delays.

• State Water Quality Standards: Restricts EPA’s ability to issue a revised or new water quality standard for a pollutant whenever a state has adopted – and EPA has already approved – a standard, unless the state concurs. In Florida, for example, EPA recently promulgated federal water quality standards over the state’s objections.

• State Section 401 Water Quality Certification: Prohibits EPA from superseding a water quality certification (that a discharge will comply with applicable water quality requirements) granted by a state under CWA section 401.

• Approval of State NPDES Permit Program Authority: Prohibits EPA from withdrawing approval of a state water quality permitting program under CWA section 402 (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, or NPDES), or from limiting federal financial assistance for the state program, on the basis that EPA disagrees with the state regarding a (i) water quality standard that a state has adopted and EPA has approved, or (ii) the implementation of any federal guidance that directs a re-interpretation of the state’s approved water quality standards.

• EPA Veto Authority over State NPDES Permitting Decisions: Prohibits EPA from objecting to a state’s issuance of an NPDES permit on the basis of (i) EPA’s differing interpretation of an approved state water quality standard, or (ii) the implementation of any federal guidance that directs a re-interpretation of the state’s approved water quality standards.

Permits for Dredged or Fill Material

H.R. 2018 places limits on EPA’s ability to veto dredge and fill permits issued by the Army Corps of Engineers and gives states more flexibility to administer these permitting programs.

• EPA Veto Authority over Corps Section 404 (Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material) Permitting Decisions: Restricts EPA’s ability to veto a Corps 404 permitting decision unless the state concurs with the veto. In an unprecedented action, EPA recently revoked a section 404 permit it had previously approved, even though the permittee had not violated any permit conditions.

• State Permit Program for the Discharge of Dredged or Fill Material: Allows a state to assume and administer only parts of the 404 permit program; under current law, states are required to assume the entire program or none of it.

Deadlines for Agency Comments

H.R. 2018 establishes reasonable time limits for agency comments and helps reduce pointless bureaucratic delays in the section 404 permitting process.

• Deadlines for Fish and Wildlife Service Comments on Proposed Section 404 Permits: The deadline for the Fish and Wildlife Service to submit comments to the Corps on a proposed section 404 permit is shortened from 90 days to 30 days (or 60 days if additional time is requested).

• Deadlines for Other Agency Comments on Proposed Section 404 Permits: Clarifies that the deadline for EPA and other agencies to submit comments to the Corps on a proposed section 404 permit is 30 days (or 60 days if additional time is requested) after the date of receipt of the application for the 404 permit.

Full text of bill:

H. R. 2018

To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to preserve the authority of each State to make determinations relating to the State’s water quality standards, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

May 26, 2011

Mr. MICA (for himself, Mr. RAHALL, Mr. SHUSTER, Mrs. CAPITO, Mr. COBLE, Mr. BARLETTA, Mr. LANDRY, Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee, Mr. BUCSHON, Mr. CRAWFORD, Mr. GRAVES of Missouri, Mr. GIBBS, Mr. CRITZ, Mr. ALTMIRE, Mr. HOLDEN, Mr. HUNTER, Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California, Mr. YOUNG of Alaska, Mrs. SCHMIDT, and Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

A BILL

To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to preserve the authority of each State to make determinations relating to the State’s water quality standards, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act of 2011′.

SEC. 2. STATE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS.

(a) State Water Quality Standards- Section 303(c)(4) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1313(c)(4)) is amended–

(1) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) and (B) as clauses (i) and (ii), respectively;

(2) by striking `(4)’ and inserting `(4)(A)’;

(3) by striking `The Administrator shall promulgate’ and inserting the following:

`(B) The Administrator shall promulgate’; and

(4) by adding at the end the following:

`(C) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A)(ii), the Administrator may not promulgate a revised or new standard for a pollutant in any case in which the State has submitted to the Administrator and the Administrator has approved a water quality standard for that pollutant, unless the State concurs with the Administrator’s determination that the revised or new standard is necessary to meet the requirements of this Act.’.

(b) Federal Licenses and Permits- Section 401(a) of such Act (33 U.S.C. 1341(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(7) With respect to any discharge, if a State or interstate agency having jurisdiction over the navigable waters at the point where the discharge originates or will originate determines under paragraph (1) that the discharge will comply with the applicable provisions of sections 301, 302, 303, 306, and 307, the Administrator may not take any action to supersede the determination.’.

(c) State NPDES Permit Programs- Section 402(c) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1342(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(5) LIMITATION ON AUTHORITY OF ADMINISTRATOR TO WITHDRAW APPROVAL OF STATE PROGRAMS- The Administrator may not withdraw approval of a State program under paragraph (3) or (4), or limit Federal financial assistance for the State program, on the basis that the Administrator disagrees with the State regarding–

`(A) the implementation of any water quality standard that has been adopted by the State and approved by the Administrator under section 303(c); or

`(B) the implementation of any Federal guidance that directs the interpretation of the State’s water quality standards.’.

(d) Limitation on Authority of Administrator To Object to Individual Permits- Section 402(d) of such Act (33 U.S.C. 1342(d)) is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(5) The Administrator may not object under paragraph (2) to the issuance of a permit by a State on the basis of–

`(A) the Administrator’s interpretation of a water quality standard that has been adopted by the State and approved by the Administrator under section 303(c); or

`(B) the implementation of any Federal guidance that directs the interpretation of the State’s water quality standards.’.

SEC. 3. PERMITS FOR DREDGED OR FILL MATERIAL.

(a) Authority of EPA Administrator- Section 404(c) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1344(c)) is amended–

(1) by striking `(c)’ and inserting `(c)(1)’; and

(2) by adding at the end the following:

`(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any permit if the State in which the discharge originates or will originate does not concur with the Administrator’s determination that the discharge will result in an unacceptable adverse effect as described in paragraph (1).’.

(b) State Permit Programs- The first sentence of section 404(g)(1) of such Act (33 U.S.C. 1344(g)(1)) is amended by striking `The Governor of any State desiring to administer its own individual and general permit program for the discharge’ and inserting `The Governor of any State desiring to administer its own individual and general permit program for some or all of the discharges’.

SEC. 4. DEADLINES FOR AGENCY COMMENTS.

Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) is amended–

(1) in subsection (m) by striking `ninetieth day’ and inserting `30th day (or the 60th day if additional time is requested)’; and

(2) in subsection (q)–

(A) by striking `(q)’ and inserting `(q)(1)’; and

(B) by adding at the end the following:

`(2) The Administrator and the head of a department or agency referred to in paragraph (1) shall each submit any comments with respect to an application for a permit under subsection (a) or (e) not later than the 30th day (or the 60th day if additional time is requested) after the date of receipt of an application for a permit under that subsection.’.

END

Sierra Club press release, June 23:

Statement by Ed Hopkins, Director of The Sierra Club’s Environmental Quality Program

Washington, DC — Today, the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee voted to pass H.R. 2018, the most significant weakening of the Clean Water Act since Congress enacted comprehensive federal clean water legislation in 1972.

Ed Hopkins, Director of Sierra Club’s Environmental Quality Program, issued the following statement:

“The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee has acted irresponsibly by passing this bill without holding even a single hearing to examine how it would affect clean water protections. Their attempt to hijack the Clean Water Act, roll back many of its provisions and undo 40 years of progress in cleaning up the nation’s waters opens up new avenues for polluters to make Americans sick, dirty our waterways and further line their pockets at the expense of the taxpayer.”

“The passage of this bill kicks the legs out from under the Environmental Protection Agency and would force Americans to rely on an uncertain and unfair patchwork of protections to ensure clean drinking water and a healthy environment. The states had their chance to enforce environmental legislation, they failed, and that’s why Congress passed the Clean Water Act.”

“Although it was unsuccessful, Sierra Club appreciates Rep. Tim Bishop’s efforts to ameliorate this terrible bill by adding protections for drinking water supplies, coastal recreational waters, economically important fish and wildlife habitat, and waters that protect communities from flooding.”