Legislation proposed to clear waters muddied by two U.S. Supreme Court rulings deserves the attention of Congress.
U.S. Rep. Jim Oberstar last week introduced the Clean Water Restoration Act, which is intended to   restore the authority of the act to protect waters of the nation.
The court rulings threw into question the government’s ability to protect and regulate waters not large enough to be considered navigable.
Oberstar says the restoration act is needed to combat water pollution and prevent many wetlands from being drained.
It’s when the word wetlands comes up that Borderland residents worry. In a county made up of more than 80 percent wetlands, changes that involved wetlands rightly concern us.
However, Oberstar maintains that the act will not impact Minnesota wetlands nor create onerous new rules or regulations that will impede development in places like Borderland, where wetlands are plenty, but development scarce for a variety of reasons. Clearly, we do not need more rules that make developing our areas more difficult.
Instead, Oberstar says the restoration act will restore the authority of the act and reaffirm exemptions for farming, mining, logging and other activities that are not regulated by the Clean Water Act.
Minnesota’s Wetlands Conservation Act is already more restrictive than the federal Clean Water Act, so the federal act will have no impact on the way wetlands are regulated in Minnesota, according to Oberstar.
In addition, the restoration act will eliminate complex applications added to the federal permitting process as a result of the two court rulings. That paperwork, which adds up to about three months of extra time processing a wetlands permit, is also a detriment to development here.
Oberstar’s Clean Water Restoration Act appears to eliminate lengthy processes and restore exemptions while at the same time focusing on pollution at its sources. Makes sense to us and we urge Congress and the president to move forward with it.