WASHINGTON - Congressional critics accuse the Clinton administration of conducting a ''power grab'' by moving to require states to develop new pollution control plans for dirty waterways just days before legislation blocking such regulations can go into effect.
Now the question is whether Republicans can muster enough bipartisan support to overturn the action by the Environmental Protection Agency within 60 days, as provided by the law. Such a prospect is slim in an election year when few lawmakers - Democrats or Republicans - want to be labeled anti-environment.
The decision may fall to Texas Gov. George W. Bush, if he is elected president, to decide whether to roll back the new rules before they take effect late next year, some opponents of the regulations conceded.
The regulations issued Tuesday by the EPA require states to examine more than 20,000 lakes, streams and other waterways, establish which ones are most polluted and develop a cleanup program to meet federal water quality standards. The new cleanup requirements eventually could cost farmers, businesses and other polluters billions of dollars a year.
President Clinton called the new regulations ''a critical common-sense step to ensure clean, safe water for all Americans'' and said the rules can be implemented ''in close partnership'' with states and local communities.
EPA Administrator Carol Browner issued the new regulations only days before Clinton was expected to sign into law a must-have emergency spending bill that contains a provision specifically barring the EPA from issuing the rule.
''It's a tremendous thumb in the eye to the United States Congress,'' complained Sen. Tim Hutchinson, R-Ark., echoing other GOP lawmakers angered over what they viewed as ''a slap in the face'' of Congress, which had wanted the rules delayed for 16 months.
Opponents of the new rules accused the Clinton administration of pushing out the rules despite widespread concern from many governors, the business community, farmers and lawmakers on Capitol Hill about the requirements' costs and complaints that the EPA was trying to thwart the authority of states in dealing with water quality issues.
''Presidential politics and not public interest are guiding the administration's decisions at this point,'' complained Sen. Bob Smith, R-N.H., chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
Although some believe the time allowed for waterway cleanup is still far too long, many environmentalists said the EPA action marks the first time the federal government has directly addressed the problem of waterways polluted by runoff from agriculture, industry, construction and other so-called non-point sources.
Largely because of such pollution, 40 percent of the country's lakes and streams currently are so dirty people can't fish or swim in them, according to the EPA.
Instead of requiring specific plants or businesses to reduce pollution through restrictive permits, as already is done widely, the EPA wants states to examine the waterways individually, determine the maximum amount of pollution that each can sustain, and craft a cleanup plan that brings the water within federal health standards.
The process could taken 15 to 25 years, but if states don't act the EPA can develop a water pollution control plan for them. The regulations follow numerous lawsuits that have been filed in recent years by environmentalists, contending neither the states nor the EPA has moved aggressively to develop cleanup plans as required by the Clean Water Act.
''This requires for the first time comprehensive planning on a river by river, lake by lake, bay by bay basis by local and state governments,'' Browner said. ''It is the most important action in a generation to clean up the nation's waters and beaches.''
She said because of the rider tacked onto the spending bill about to be signed into law, the EPA would not be able to enforce the new rules until Oct. 1, 2001. But agency officials said the delay should not cause a serious problem - barring intervention by a future president - since states would not be required to submit their first cleanup plans until April 2002.
Opponents of the new requirements include an array of powerful interests from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to the utility industry and farm groups, as well as many governors. They argue the rules infringe on states that already have waterway cleanup plans and could cost as much as $3 billion a year.
The EPA estimates the cost to states at $20 million to $30 million a year, but senior agency officials acknowledge the overall cost to industry, agriculture and others affected could be in the billions of dollars.
---
On the Net: EPA announcement: http://www.epa.gov/epahome/headline-0711.htm
