Clean Water Restoration Act, Not Very Popular
March 6, 2008
From the National Center for Public Policy Research:
Washington, D.C. – A majority of Americans oppose a proposal to expand the Clean Water Act, according to a new nationwide survey released today by the National Center for Public Policy Research.
The proposal, the Clean Water Restoration Act (CRWA), has been introduced by Rep. James Oberstar (D-MN) in the House of Representatives and Russell Feingold (D-WI) in the Senate.
Voters were informed the Congress is considering a measure that would expand the areas covered under the Clean Water Act, including to areas that are only intermittently wet. They were then provided brief arguments both pro and con on the measure and then asked whether they favored or opposed the proposal.
54% of those expressing an opinion oppose the measure, while 46% favor it, according to the survey. Among political independents, the margin was greater — 56% oppose the measure while 44% favor it.
“Americans reject the key feature of the Oberstar-Feingold proposal: Namely, that waters need not be navigable – nor even be waters – to be subject to federal regulation,” said David Ridenour, Vice President of The National Center for Public Policy Research. “It is significant that independents, who are increasingly seen as an important barometer of national mood, reject Oberstar-Feingold by a whopping 12 percentage points.”
The National Center’s survey is the second poll released in less than a week to find that a majority of Americans oppose CWRA. A poll released last week by the Western Business Roundtable found that 63% of Americans oppose the measure and 47% strongly oppose it.
The National Center poll found a majority of Americans from all regions oppose the proposed expansion of the Clean Water Act, led by the Mountain States (62%), the Farm Belt (59%), and New England (58%).
“These results are not surprising given the enormous, negative implications the Oberstar-Feingold proposal would have for farmers, ranchers, hunters, and outdoor enthusiasts,” said Ridenour.
The poll was conducted by Wilson Research Strategies, which surveyed 800 registered voters who are likely to vote in the 2008 presidential election. The poll has a margin of error of 3.46% at a 95% confidence interval.
The National Center for Public Policy Research is a nonpartisan, nonprofit educational foundation established in 1982.
Posted by Tom Remington
Most Commented Posts
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
We feature the latest news, events and politics effecting the sports of hunting, fishing, and all outdoor activities in North America.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-2421
I don’t think the Clean Water Act as it stands now is a bad thing. Now I have to look at it harder with Russ Finegold as a co-sponsor I got warning bells going off.
Last updated in the 80’s it did force local municipalities to start monitoring it’s waste water treatment facilities. Especially during times of heavy rainfall. Treatment facilities were being overwhelmed with ground water infiltration into their collection lines and washing the untreated sewage into streams and rivers. The same streams and rivers where drinking water was coming from! Never mind well head protection guidelines for those who depended on wells for water.
Allot of sewer line upgrades have been the result, and cleaner creeks, streams,and rivers. Also an awareness of protecting our ground water sources. WE have come a long way since 1972 under the clean water act. I don’t think anyone who’s been around long enough can argue with that.
Now I’m not sure, what’s up with wanting to re-word the existing law? The way the Gov. is selling off all of OUR assets I’d be suspicious of any lawyer playing around with words. Might wake up one morning and find out that China owns our water rights!!
You have to look at the new “Clean Water Restoration Act” which goes far beyond the original and that is what is upsetting people. I think most people are relatively happy with the Clean Water Act.
the bill before congress is in the link above. My limited education holds me back on some of the wordplay. Was looking for someone to explain why I’m feeling uncomfortable about some in congress wanting to change the words? Thanks
Is the link the New One?
Yes
I should proof read more closely. should have read: As it stands now is NOT a bad thing
[...] written a couple times over the past few months about the CWRA (here and here) but Knight brings to the attention of American sportsmen what could await us should this act be [...]
[...] written a couple times over the past few months about the CWRA (here and here) but Knight brings to the attention of American sportsmen what could await us should this act be [...]
I don’t doubt that farmers, ranchers, hunters, and outdoor enthusiasts wouldn’t like the CWRA. The farm/hunting lobby out west is out of control since the Bush administration is slowly giving federal law over to states rights like the slaughter of wolves in Idaho and Wyoming, claiming they threaten deer and elk populations when those states reported populations of deer and elk beyond the optimum. Then there is the bison kill off, 1100 slaughtered lately, or the mustang horse roundup. Then I read that Bush is also getting ready to undo the Roadless Rule eyeballing Idaho’s millions of acres of forest, second largest in the nation to open it up to lumbering, mining, and drilling. The big picture starts becoming more and more clear.
Loosening federal environmental laws and giving them over to individual states is part of a plan that gives big money interests reign over a territory. According to Earthjusttice “Polluters, developers, and corporations are seeking to place profit over health by dismantling the Clean Water Act. Muddied rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court have created uncertainty as to which waters are protected under federal law. Federal agencies have issued confusing and ambiguous guidelines on which waters are protected — and which waters aren’t — by the Clean Water Act. Entire lakes and headwaters are losing their vital safeguards, leaving them open to damage or destruction by industrial pollution and unchecked development. The Clean Water Act cannot work if half of the streams, rivers, and wetlands across the country are left out of the law’s protective scope.”
Many more organizations know this is true. I’ve done enough environmental research over a year and half now to see this has been happening. Quite frankly I’m glad the CWRA covers surface groundwater especially relative to CAFO’s and their open air lagoons. Don’t think it’s a big deal than read: Boss Hog by Jeff Tietz. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/12840743/porks_dirty_secret_the_nations_top_hog_producer_is_also_one_of_americas_worst_polluters.
Heck I just wrote a blog today that the EPA has contended for thirty years now that the semisolid waste pollution screened out of our drinking water from over 16,000 plants is a nutrient. Never mind the bacteria, and low levels of toxic substances present, the EPA thinks it’s all right to spread around. And we trust that the old Clean Water Act is still all right. That’s naive in view of what this administrations has done and continues to do to the environment.
[...] Washington, D.C. – A majority of Americans oppose a proposal to expand the Clean Water Act, accordhttp://mainehuntingtoday.com/bbb/2008/03/06/clean-water-restoration-act-not-very-popular/Council for Aid to EducationThe cwra is delivered entirely over the Internet in a proctored setting. [...]