I've got your local impacts for you...right here.

By Michael Kelly, Communications Director - Follow Michael on Twitter (@MichaelEdKelly) Today the House and Senate are getting together for a bicameral hearing about the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) proposal to protect the drinking water for more than one in three of us. EPA's proposal is strong, common sense, and backed up by science. It supported by mayors from Boston to Austin, legislators from Connecticut to California and Americans from Pittsburgh to Pueblo. So, naturally, Congress is doing everything it can to make sure EPA can never finalize its proposal to protect clean water. We're going to hear a lot of claims that this rule isn't supported by science (it is), is a massive federal land grab (it's not), and puddles in back yards (really?). We're also going to hear that local governments don't support EPA's proposal. Well, we've got letters from 280 state legislators from 11 states, resolutions from 16 cities and counties, 5 mayors, a bunch of city and county agencies, and 8 Attorneys General that put truth to the lie about local governments not supporting the fight to #ProtectCleanWater. And here is what they have to say (emphasis on the good parts mine) All of this from Mayor Bill Perduto of Pittsburgh:

“As local and state decision makers, we believe broad federal protections are critical to protecting our local waters. Water flows downhill, and each of the lower 48 states have water bodies that are downstream of one or more other states,” said Mayor Peduto. “Since the passage of the Clean Water Act, states have come to rely on the Act’s core provisions and have structured our own water pollution programs accordingly. We support the draft rule’s proposal to restore Clean Water Act protection to all tributaries of navigable waterways. Failure to do so would jeopardize water quality in our larger riversheds and estuaries. It would also put at risk the millions of dollars and thousands of jobs generated by water related tourism activities and other businesses that are dependent on clean water supplies.”

From 26 Texas state legisltors!

We support the draft rule’s proposal to restore Clean Water Act protection to all tributaries of navigable waterways. Failure to do so would jeopardize water quality in our larger riversheds and estuaries. It would also put at risk the millions of dollars and thousands of jobs generated by water related tourism activities and other businesses that are dependent on clean water supplies...This confusion has put the drinking water for 117 million Americans at risk, including 11.5 million Texans. Millions of small streams and wetlands provide most of the flow to our most treasured waterways, including the Brazos, Colorado, Trinity, and Rio Grande rivers, and Caddo Lake and Galveston Bay.

Connecticut state representatives get it.

This commonsense proposal is based on the best scientific understanding of how streams and wetlands affect downstream water quality. The public benefits of the rule – in the form of flood protection, filtering pollution, providing wildlife habitat, supporting outdoor recreation and recharging groundwater – far outweigh the costs.

So do Colorado state reps

Perhaps most importantly, the proposed rule will help to protect Colorado’s robust outdoor recreation economy and those communities that rely upon it. Rivers in Colorado support a Multibillion dollar outdoor recreation economy that includes white--‐water rafting, boating, kayaking, fly fishing, birding, and hunting. In fact, this river--‐based recreation economy is the backbone of many of our rural and mountain communities. Rivers in Colorado generate over $9 billion in economic activity every year, which include supporting nearly 80,000 jobs.

Pennsylvania state reps...well...you get the idea.

Millions of small streams and wetlands provide most of the flow to our most treasured rivers, including the Allegheny, Monongahela, Delaware, Schuylkill, and Susquehanna in Pennsylvania. If we do not protect these networks of small streams, we cannot protect and restore the lakes, rivers and bays that our economy and way of life depend on.

Michigan state legislators want to protect their wetlands.

Michigan has lost 50% of its wetlands, and 17% of the remaining wetlands along with 26,000 lakes and ponds could be considered “isolated” waters no longer protected under the Clean Water Act. Wetlands destruction continues in Michigan despite the many benefits these wetlands provide. We support the draft rule’s proposal to restore Clean Water Act protection to all tributaries of navigable waterways. Failure to do so would jeopardize water quality in our larger river sheds and estuaries. It would also put at risk the millions of dollars and thousands of jobs generated by water related tourism activities and other businesses that are dependent on clean water supplies. Michigan is ranked number 2 out of all states as a non-resident fishing destination, with annual non-resident expenditures of more than $326 million. This economic activity is largely dependent on clean and healthy aquatic habitat.

And finally...This mic drop from Philadelphia Councilwoman Blondell Reynold Brown

"Clean water is more precious than diamonds or oil and it is time we as a society start treating it that way. The cleanliness of our water should not depend on our zip code, who we voted for or how informed our neighbors are. Clean water is a fundamental right all citizens are entitled to."

More tomorrow.