Don't pollute Clean Water Act

Editorial

The Clean Water Act ranks as one of the most effective laws Congress has ever passed, forcing the cleanup of contaminated water bodies throughout the nation, including Tampa Bay.

Before its adoption, industries and municipalities treated rivers and bays as toxic dumping grounds. The Cuyahoga River in Ohio actually caught fire in 1969.

But the Clean Water Act, adopted in 1972, stopped all that. It returned scores of water bodies to usable conditions, eliminated serious health threats and bolstered local economies. It also spared taxpayers burdensome cleanup costs.

Now Rep. John Mica, a Jacksonville Republican, wants to gut the act. He would allow each state to determine water-quality standards, just as they did prior to the act.

The bill would restrict the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's authority to veto dredge-and-fill permits, where federal authorities have provided a valuable check on state regulators eager to please influential interests.

This wholesale attack on water quality standards surely stems from the EPA's proposed nutrient-pollution standards for Florida, which business interests claim would cripple the state economy.

Advocates of the cleanup rules say opponents are exaggerating, using the most expensive cleanup methods possible, such as reverse osmosis, to calculate costs. But many businesses express reasonable fears about increased costs.

Whatever the case, the conflict does not justify eviscerating an essential federal law.

Indeed, the issue shows that the EPA has hardly been overly aggressive in enforcing the law.

Though it was intended to return waterways to fishable and swimmable conditions by 1983 and stop the discharges of all pollutants by 1985, the EPA has come nowhere close to meeting those lofty goals.

It devised the hotly contested "numeric nutrient criteria" for Florida only after environmental groups forced the issue. The EPA directed the state to develop nutrient standards in 1998 but did nothing when the state did not comply by the 2004 deadline. Environmentalists sued, and a judge ordered the EPA to develop the rules.

Last year, when the rules met intense opposition from business interests, EPA officials delayed their adoption for 15 months and said they will work with state and local officials to ensure the cleanup plans meet local needs. The feds promise not to impose a "one-size-fits-all approach."

Opponents are still raising alarms, but we suspect the ultimate rules won't be as burdensome as they fear.

Without a doubt, nutrient pollution is a problem. A state Department of Environmental Protection study found that half of Florida's rivers and more than half of its lakes have poor water quality. Even many of the state's famed springs, including Wakulla and Silver, are tainted. About 500 square miles of estuaries are fouled by nutrient pollution, which causes fish-killing algae blooms, clouds the water and smothers sea grasses that sustain marine life.

Some action is necessary.

But even this volatile episode illustrates the Clean Water Act's value. It provides a necessary safeguard for the public, which suffers when states refuse to protect water quality. Yet it is hardly executed with zeal, as the continued delays in the rules' adoption underscores.

And laws can be changed to address specific actions taken under the act if Congress feels regulators have gone too far. It is significant that the Clean Water Act is exercised only when states have failed to adequately protect public waters.

Until the Clean Water Act, citizens could do little as industry-friendly states allowed widespread pollution. History has proved the law's value and effectiveness. Congress should leave it alone.