<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=windows-1252">
<title>ffaletter070607</title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#000000">
<p align="center"><font face="Times New Roman">
<span style="background-color: #C1E7FF">
<img border="0" src="../articles/Archives/home2.1.jpg" alt="Time to Take Action" width="720" height="86"><br>
</span>
</font>
<font face="Times New Roman" size="4" color="#C1E7FF">
<span style="font-weight: 700; background-color: #000000">Our Klamath Basin
Water Crisis</span></font><b><font face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: #000000"><br>
</span>
</font> </b> <font color="#48A4FF"> <span style="font-weight: 700; background-color: #000000">
<font face="Times New Roman">Upholding rural Americans' rights to grow food,
<br>
own property, and caretake our wildlife and natural resources.</font></span><font face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: #000000"> </span></font></font></p>
<div align="center">
<table border="0" width="754" bgcolor="#48A4FF" cellpadding="10" height="70" style="border-collapse: collapse" cellspacing="0" id="table1">
<tr>
<td width="734" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" valign="top" height="46">
Re: CleanWater Act from Family Farm Alliance<br>
<br>
P.O. Box 216 Klamath Falls, Oregon 97601 <br>
(541)-850-9007 <br>
July 6, 2007 <br>
<br>
Dear Member of Congress: <br>
<br>
On behalf of the members of the Family Farm Alliance (Alliance), I
write to strongly urge you to <br>
oppose the “Clean Water Authority Restoration Act of 2007,” (CWARA),
as introduced by <br>
Congressman James Oberstar (D-MN). Although its intent may be
otherwise, this bill may actually <br>
create more uncertainty and confusion over the application and
interpretation of the Clean Water Act <br>
(CWA), thereby contributing to litigation and leaving more
interpretations to the courts and <br>
regulatory agencies. <br>
<br>
The Alliance advocates for family farmers, ranchers, irrigation
districts and allied industries in 17 <br>
Western states to ensure the availability of reliable, affordable
irrigation water supplies. Our <br>
members use a combination of surface and groundwater, managed
through a variety of local, state, <br>
and federal arrangements. <br>
<br>
CWARA would appear to grant the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and the U.S. <br>
Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) unprecedented regulatory control
over all “intrastate waters” – <br>
which some will interpret as essentially all wet areas within a
state. Importantly, it fails to clarify any <br>
limits on this expanded and uncertain authority. <br>
<br>
We are also gravely concerned about the broader implications
associated with the redefining of <br>
“navigable waters” contemplated by this bill. There is already
confusion over the waters to which <br>
Section 404 of the CWA applies; CWARA raises concerns regarding
jurisdictional determination <br>
that apply to the entirety of the CWA. Rather than clarify
jurisdictional questions, CWARA would <br>
create still more uncertainty as to even routine activities such
as pumping irrigation water from one <br>
area to another. Such implications could have huge ramifications
for simple operations that do not <br>
adversely impact the water quality of U.S. rivers and streams. <br>
<br>
CWARA fails to recognize the primary right and responsibility of
States to control local water use <br>
decisions, which appears to be inconsistent with Section 101(b) of
the existing CWA. It also does <br>
not explain how an expanded federal presence in the water quality
arena will impact the existing <br>
state processes that are already addressing the same issues CWARA
purports to address. It is not as <br>
if there is a vacuum of clean water regulations; state regulatory
processes are in place and they are <br>
working. <br>
<br>
Further, as the number of waters subject to federal water quality
standards increases, untold time and <br>
resources will be spent at the local level dealing with the Corps
and EPA, further encumbering a <br>
system that is already known to be overburdened and less then
responsive. This adds yet another <br>
degree of uncertainty to farmers and ranchers who require a
reliable water supply in order to secure <br>
operating loans and other types of financing. To avoid this
unintended but certain outcome, new <br>
CWA legislation should instead more narrowly and clearly define
existing authority. <br>
<br>
<br>
Already, unnecessary restrictions have been placed on private
landowners trying to use their <br>
property and on the ability of local agencies to operate and
maintain man-made canals and ditches. <br>
Also, as more Westerners look at agricultural waters to supply
future municipal needs, more water <br>
treatment plants are being built off rivers and canal systems to
treat surface water to drinking supply <br>
standards. For these interests, the CWARA could produce additional
Section 404 permitting and <br>
delays, further impeding the exercise of vested property rights
and food production, and disrupting <br>
the ability to efficiently move water to treatment plants. <br>
<br>
As but one example, consider the routine maintenance of the
thousands of miles of existing ditches <br>
and canals in the West that transport water for agricultural,
municipal, and industrial uses. These <br>
facilities - some over a century old - require continual
maintenance in order to serve the functions for <br>
which they were constructed. Such maintenance activities include
routine activities like replacing <br>
concrete panels and riprap, stabilizing channels and channel banks
stabilization, connecting pipes, <br>
and controlling aquatic weeds. <br>
<br>
The purpose of this work is to better manage and conserve limited
water supplies, and in many <br>
cases, to maintain flood carrying capacity. Generally, maintenance
activities are performed during <br>
limited windows of time when there is little or no flow in the
canal, and direct water quality impacts <br>
are therefore minimal or non-existent. In fact, many maintenance
activities, such as bank <br>
stabilization, protect and enhance water quality, the goal of the
CWA. Most of these activities <br>
currently do not require Section 404 permits. <br>
<br>
However, as drafted CWARA could, and likely would, be interpreted
to require Section 404 permits <br>
for many routine maintenance activities. Nationwide, we are told
there is a current backlog of at <br>
least 15,000 CWA permit requests. Even the most straight-forward
Section 404 permit can take <br>
months or years to process now – time that system operators don’t
always have. Further delays in <br>
meeting the expanded permitting requirements of CWARA will result
in the disruption of vital water <br>
supply operations and deferral of maintenance activities necessary
to assure supply reliability, flood <br>
protection and water quality. <br>
<br>
Congress has a unique opportunity to instill a common-sense
approach to protecting our water <br>
quality and related resources; one that steers clear of creating
certain havoc in surface water <br>
operations throughout the country by clarifying that man-made
ditches are not jurisdictional. <br>
Unfortunately, the proposed CWARA is ambiguous and will lead to
uncertainty and litigation. We <br>
urge you to consider the appropriate protections already afforded
U.S. waters under the CWA, <br>
particularly via existing state programs. Please reject the
unprecedented federal expansion proposed <br>
in this bill, and instead find ways to streamline current CWA
administration. <br>
<br>
Western family farmers and ranchers urge clarity, not expansion of
the Clean Water Act. <br>
<br>
Sincerely, <br>
<br>
Patrick O’Toole ,
President Family Farm Alliance<br>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
</div>
<blockquote>
<div align="center">
<table border="1" width="50%" cellpadding="4" bordercolor="#B3B3FF" bgcolor="#FFF3D0" id="table2">
<tr>
<td width="51%" align="center">
<b><a href="../index.htm">
<font face="Times New Roman">
<span style="background-color: #FFF3D0">Home</span></font></a></b></td>
<td width="44%" align="center">
<b>
<a href="../articles/Archives/archive1/contacts.htm">
<font face="Times New Roman">
<span style="background-color: #FFF3D0">Contact</span></font></a></b></td>
</tr>
</table>
</div>
<p> </p>
<p><font color="#FFFF00" face="Times New Roman">
<span style="background-color: #000000">
Page Updated:
<!--webbot bot="Timestamp"
S-Type="EDITED" S-Format="%A %B %d, %Y %I:%M %p" --> Pacific </span>
</font></p>
<p><font color="#00FFFF" face="Times New Roman">
<span style="background-color: #000000"><br>
Copyright © klamathbasincrisis.org, 2007, All Rights
Reserved</span></font></p>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>