HOUSE VOTE ON H.R. 2018, DESIGNED TO ATTACK THE CLEAN WATER ACT
CBF THANKS these representatives who voted
against this threatening legislation.
(D-DE At Large)
(D-MD 2nd District)
(D-MD 3rd District)
(D-MD 4th District)
(D-MD 5th District)
(D-MD 7th District)
Chris Van Hollen Jr.
(D-MD 8th District)
(D-NY 21st District)
(D-NY 23rd District)
(D-NY 26th District)
(R-VA 1st District)
(R-VA 2nd District)
(D-VA 3rd District)
(D-VA 8th District)
(R-VA 10th District)
(D-VA 11th District)
CBF URGES these representatives who voted for this legislation that would
trash the Clean Water Act to VOTE FOR CLEAN WATER in the future.
(R-MD 1st District)
(R-MD 6th District)
(R-NY 20th District)
(R-NY 24th District)
Ann Marie Buerkle
(R-NY 25th District)
(R-NY 29th District)
(R-PA 6th District)
(R-PA 9th District)
(R-PA 10th District)
(R-PA 11th District)
(D-PA 12th District)
(R-PA 16th District)
(D-PA 17th District)
(R-VA 4th District)
(R-VA 5th District)
(R-VA 6th District)
(R-VA 7th District)
(R-VA 9th District)
(R-WV 1st District)
Glenn Thompson Jr.
(R-PA 5th District)
(R-PA 19th District)
(R-WV 2nd District)
Nick Rahall II
(D-WV 3rd District)
H. R. 2018, introduced as the “Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act of 2011,”
was passed by the house in mid-July. The House bill is now with the Senate,
where future action is uncertain.
in particular, are expending tremendous
energy arguing that the Bay model underre-ports agricultural conservation practices
already in place.
CBF has already shown that while the
model has been widely endorsed by the sci-
entific community, it was recognized that
minor aspects of the model needed further
refinement. Demonstrating its flexibility and
its willingness to work cooperatively, EPA
modified the model and adjusted the pollu-
tion diet very slightly (about two percent),
having found that urban and suburban sec-
tors are polluting more than was previously
understood and that the agricultural com-
munity may be contributing less pollution.
These are not the actions of a federal agency
“run amok” with a desire to force farmers
out of business.
The battle for clean water will soon heat up.
The states are in the process of refining their
pollution-reduction plans to determine the
detailed local actions that will be necessary. A
judge’s decision on our motion to intervene
in the legal case against EPA may be imminent. And we anticipate a protracted battle in
Congress. Opponents of EPA will argue cost
and overreached federal authorities.
We will argue the facts. The pollution diet
is well within EPA’s legal authority (see
page 19). Pollution reduction creates jobs,
whereas pollution threatens them.
CBF members are passionate advocates. We
thank you and urge you to continue to speak
up for clean water, for this pollution diet, and
for the undeniable connection between pollution reduction and an improving economy.
Tell a friend, call your representative, write a
letter to the editor of your local paper. Thank
those voting for clean water, and urge those
who have not to vote differently next time.
At a time such as this, when our economy
faces perilous challenges, investing in natural
resources makes sense. The return will be
clean, safe water, a rebounding seafood industry, and an example for our country.
u To learn more about CBF’s efforts to support
EPA’s Bay pollution diet, visit cbf.org/tmdl.