Strange as it seems, clean water could be a beneficiary of the Jeffrey Epstein controversy.
A full House vote on U.S. House Resolution 3898, called the PERMIT Act, stalled in late July as the House Rules Committee hit a procedural question, adjourned without a vote, and did not reconvene as the Speaker of the House sent members home until September, reportedly to avoid Epstein-related controversy. Easy majority passage had been expected.
The pause gives people time to digest the Promoting Efficient Review for Modern Infrastructure Today Act, or PERMIT, and to contact their congressional delegation while they are at home. The act claims to “modernize” the Clean Water Act by removing environmental regulation hurdles to construction, mining, oil and gas development, and industrial agriculture. Critics say it is a death knell for the Clean Water Act.
Introduced in late June, the public has had little time to consider or take action, beyond efforts of groups like the National Wildlife Federation and the League of Conservation Voters. The subject is not sexy, mainstream media coverage has been minimal, but the matter is dire.
Boiled down, it’s about water, how it connects, and what is allowed in our streams, ponds, and marshes. The Clean Water Act governs “Waters of the United States” and, believe it or not, what waters are included in “WOTUS” has long been hotly debated.
When people think about the Clean Water Act, they envision a clearwater river that needs protection, or rusty pipes pouring dank water into a lake. But the Act touches everyone’s life, and it’s as near as the glass of water on your dining room table.
A weakened Clean Water Act could erode the ability of a state, municipality, or individuals to demand changes or call for a cleanup by limiting the definition of what is considered damage to a watershed and providing loopholes for bad actors.