Editorials

Under the leadership of a Republican president in 1972, one of the most impressive, far-reaching and successful environmental initiatives in the nation's history was put into law.

Republicans and Democrats have long agreed that the Clean Water Act has been largely responsible for making the nation's water safer and cleaner. Shipping canals no longer catch fire, fish have returned to streams around formerly polluted urban centers, and dangerous contaminants have been removed from much of our drinking water.

In recent years, however, under the leadership of a solidly conservative U.S. Supreme Court, the power of that 1972 law has been substantially weakened. Two key court decisions altering the definition of wetlands have opened the possibility that the nation's water supply may again be susceptible to wide-scale pollution.

This is a particularly disturbing thought during a severe drought, a time when all of us are beginning to again understand what a precious resource clean water is.

To remedy the problem, Congress is preparing a bill called the Clean Water Restoration Act in an attempt to put the muscle back in the original Clean Water Act.

The good news is that there is growing support in the House and Senate to move the provision forward. The bad news is that in Alabama, only Rep. Artur Davis, D-Birmingham, is supporting the measure.

This dismal showing of support from one of the most biologically diverse states is understandable when you consider how much industry despises this legislation and how much power Alabama's business lobby wields. Most developers, for example, do not want to be constrained by wetlands regulations.

Commerce and development, that's where the money and the influence is, not with the interest groups that are actually concerned about the state of the nation's water.

What we have is an example of one congressman, Rep. Davis, who has the guts to stand up to industry, while the others are caving to the entrenched.