Republicans Will Regret Rush to Undo Stream Protection Rule
“I think it is absurd to say that there’s no need for more protections from surface-mining pollution, and Kentucky is actually one of the best examples of the water pollution that we’ve seen from surface mining over the years” — Thom Kay, senior legislative representative for Appalachian Voices.
I couldn’t agree more. Mr. Kay knows firsthand that mountaintop-removal mining has been responsible for destroying an estimated 2,000 miles of streams in Appalachia and is linked to a plethora of health problems.
That’s why stand in strong opposition to H.J. Res 38, the resolution disapproving the rule submitted by the Department of the Interior known as the Stream Protection Rule.
I would like to express both my support of the Stream Protection Rule as well as my deep concern over the use of the Congressional Review Act to derail smart regulations that protect our citizens’ health while simultaneously creating a precedent of recklessly obstructing federal rule making.
The Stream Protection Rule is an effective and sensible regulation that has undergone years of development in order to compel big polluters and industry actors to responsibly dispose of dangerous waste so that our water supply and ecosystems remain free of toxic pollutants. The attempt to dismantle this rule will cause irreparable harm to clean drinking water sources for millions of Americans. The Stream Protection Rule provides Americans with an environmental monitoring system that assures the cleanliness of the water.
The residents of the 4th District of Georgia, like many of the constituents of my colleagues, live alongside and depend upon rivers to be protected from harmful pollutants and toxic chemicals that are the product of mining and industrial run-off. Run-off from mining and industry sources contaminate stream water with various lethal toxins, including lead and arsenic. These pollutants not only impact the lives of people living in close proximity to the run-off sources of heavy pollutants, but all people who live downstream.
The water protected by this rule is the same water consumed by our families, including children and the elderly. Those exposed to carcinogens in their water can suffer from birth defects, cancer, and even death.
Clean and safe water is in the interest of all Americans, regardless of their income level or political party. It matters not whether a state is red or blue, access to clean water will always be necessary, and it should be mandatory. Clean water is a human right and this rule ensures our country can provide clean drinking water to its citizens.
I ask my colleagues this question: if the Stream Protection Rule is overturned are you prepared to tell your constituents and their families that their water will be less safe to drink or use?
I am not alone in my stance. More than 70 groups representing the interests of a wide-swath of American citizens have expressed their strong disapproval with this resolution. Two of these groups, the Savannah Riverkeeper and Altamaha Riverkeeper organizations, represent the environmental concerns of my home, the great state of Georgia. These groups along with dozens of others have expressed to our country’s elected officials that a resolution of disapproval for the Steam Protection Rule would significantly jeopardize the well-being of millions of Americans.
By subjecting the Stream Protection Rule to the Congressional Review Act, we set a dangerous precedent in delegitimizing federal rulemaking procedure, while we elevate the interests of corporations over the health and safety of our citizens. The health of our nation’s children must supersede the maximization of profits.
For the sake of the millions of Americans who rely on the safety regulations established by this rule, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote NO on the resolution. The citizens of our nation will thank you for putting their health first.
