Published: June 06, 2007 11:12 pm         

Officials: Congress’ actions toward Clean Water Act could impact farmers, oil industry

A plan to amend the federal Clean Water Act, now in discussion in a congressional committee on transportation/infrastructure, is being watched keenly here.

Matching identical words in their separate responses to U.S. Rep. James Oberstar’s bill introduced last month, both Richard Alig, president of Kingfisher County Farm Bureau, and Jim Luetkemeyer, spokesman for Congressman Frank Lucas, said, “We don’t know how far they would go.”

The issue is tweaking wording in the Clean Water Act that could potentially widen Environmental Protection Agency and Army Corps of Engineers jurisdiction over just about any body of water imaginable, from farm ponds to “even the water in your house gutters down to the water under your property,” Alig said.

Alig said Oberstar, D-Minn., has circulated a letter among his colleagues saying his bill would restore the intent of Congress when it wrote the Clean Water Act by removing the one word “navigable” from its text.

Navigable usually has been associated with large bodies of water with highly noticeable currents. In recent years, as farmers have contended with federal officials in court over rerouting certain bodies of water in marshland and other wetland areas, navigable waters have widened by definition, Alig said.

“What the EPA means now by ‘navigable’ is taking a Popsicle stick and seeing if it floats. It the stick moves, the water is navigable,” Alig said, noting eliminating the word altogether makes sense from an EPA point of view.

Oberstar’s bill would have a far-reaching and significant impact on agriculture and property owners across Okla-homa and the United States, Alig said, as they would be subject to the same regulatory procedures and fines as big industry located near major water fronts, such as ports, rivers and bays.

“Being a farmer, it would affect me tremendously,” Alig said.

Not only would Oklahoma producers be affected but the bill would be trouble to independent natural gas and oil producers because of the potential for more regulatory costs. Luetkemeyer said.

He said he spoke with independent petroleum lobbyists concerning the bill.

“With the threat of additional burdens they would have to pay, there could be a substantial loss of marginal gas wells, with the vast majority being in Oklaho-ma. You would see a further loss of domestic production in the United States,” Luetkemey-er said.

Lucas. R-Okla., is well aware of Oberstar’s bill.

“Oberstar wants the EPA to stick their nose in every mud puddle in Oklahoma. It makes no sense to create more red tape for landowners who are not breaking any laws,” he said.

“Will our stock ponds now have to meet EPA regulations like the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, Section 404 Requirements and the Total Maximum Daily Load Program? It’s another example of regulations run amok,” Lucas said in a prepared statement.