Everything that's important to us -- our economy, and our culture -- is related to water. From fishing to recreation, people around here rely on it. It's not just the Gulf Coast we're concerned about, either -- much of the state is comprised of wetlands. The Mississippi River and Atchafalaya Basin cut through the entire state. Even the languages that are spoken around here -- French, Spanish, Haitian, Native American -- have specific water terminology.
If clean water isn't important to Gulf Coast states, I don't know what is.
So earlier this year, when the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced it was proposing a new Waters of the US rule to protect American waterways under the Clean Water Act, I knew right away that this was good news. Water is too important a resource for us not to protect. I support the EPA's rule, and I hope more businesses will do the same.
The fact that the federal government has clarified this issue is a positive sign. Waterways are not defined by state or parish boundaries, so our efforts to ensure they are not polluted must happen at both the federal and state levels. Take the Mississippi River, for example, which is the source of drinking water for much of Southeast Louisiana. It costs money and time to clean up pollutants, many of which come from places upstream. The only way to link people who are affected by the water to the people who affect it is with federal regulations.
In the final rule, the EPA clarified that green infrastructure -- like the kind my company develops -- is not classified as a jurisdictional wetland or Water of the US.
Our company designs green infrastructure to filter and clean runoff before it gets into a receiving waterway, and infiltrate it back into the ground better. That way whatever ends up in our groundwater and surface waters is clean. It was great to see the EPA listening to legitimate questions and concerns and taking action to address them. That's how a comment period should work.
Still, we've heard the same arguments we always seem to face when environmental regulations are proposed -- that it's going to shutter businesses, kill jobs, and wreck our economy. That's the wrong way to look at this. The Clean Water Act isn't here to guarantee totally pristine water -- it's to limit how much pollution can be allowed in our water. It's a shame, a travesty, that we still look at water as something to dump in, and not as a resource we need to protect.
A perfect example is Lake Pontchartrain, which drains everything from Baton Rouge on down, including industrial plants and urban areas. We used to be able to swim in it, but now the most of the lake is too polluted. There are some fabulous natural rivers north of the lake, and they are impaired water bodies as well. For all the businesses that rely on water -- whether for tourism, fishing, or any other industry that needs it -- pollution puts their livelihoods at risk.
Right now, the burden of pollution lies on taxpayers or customers who have to pay for cleanup, or deal with polluted water. For everyone who's concerned about costs, somebody's already paying for polluted water, but it's not the people who pollute. That's not fair, and it's not something we should accept.
Most small business owners agree -- 80 percent support the EPA's proposed rule, according to polling from the American Sustainable Business Council (ASBC). And for those who argue that protecting clean water is an economic burden, small business owners do not agree -- 71 percent say they're necessary for economic growth. Only six percent said they were a burden.
They know what we know -- water is a crucial resource. You have to protect what you have; once it's polluted, the impacts and costs of cleaning it are phenomenal. The most cost-effective move is to prevent pollution in the first place. That's what the Clean Water Act and this rule would help do.
Brown is the President of Dana Brown and Associates, a New Orleans-based landscape architecture and planning firm.
TOP