Water Act Critical for Clinton, Environmentalists

WASHINGTON The Safe Drinking Water Act - environmentallegislation trickling through the legislative process on Capitol Hill- would not seem to be the sort of measure that could color apresident's political future.

And yet, with Congress slated to begin debate on the bill in thecoming week, the nation's principal environmental organizations aremaking the water act the bellwether of their future relations withPresident Clinton.

If in the coming weeks the president joins their fight toprotect water quality standards from compromises sought by manystates and local water-management agencies, environmentalists saythat their relations with the administration - which got off to arocky start - will be amicable.

They reason that, after Clinton retreated in the face ofopposition on so many initiatives important to them, he must take astand for the bill. A tough White House posture would scareopponents, rally environmentalists and set a new tone for a welter ofenvironmental legislation to follow.

But if, in their eyes, the president ducks the fight and allowsCongress to lower drinking water standards, environmentalists say thefuture of relations may be irreparably harmed. And that, in turn,could prompt the nation's green groups to sit out Clinton'sre-election campaign, as well as a few races that are seen asimportant to his fate - such as California's gubernatorial race.

How did it come to this?

It is a measure of the ferment in relations between the Clintonadministration and the environmental community that thereauthorization of an obscure law such as the Safe Drinking Water Acthas become a potential turning point for the nation'senvironmentalists.

After 12 years of Republican administrations, whenenvironmentalists found the White House door virtually closed tothem, the first year of the Clinton administration brought themaccess to the president and personnel appointments that surpassedtheir hopes.

And yet, said Jim Maddy, executive director of the League ofConservation Voters, there is a "broadly felt sense" among the greengroups that the Clinton administration's rhetorical embrace of theircauses has not translated into clear policy victories.

The disappointment began when Clinton, facing a storm of Senateopposition, withdrew a proposal to raise fees charged to ranchers forgrazing their livestock on federal lands - an increase that had beenhailed by the green groups. That pattern continued when Clintonbacked down on imposing a broad-gauged energy tax sought byenvironmentalists after congressional critics balked.

On issues as varied as pesticide reform, greenhouse gasreduction and a plan to clean up the Everglades, environmentalistslament that the Clinton administration has reached for politicallyexpedient compromises that pose risks to the environment and publichealth.

In the administration's defense, officials pointed to theenvironmental stature of its appointees, the ambition of Clinton'sagenda and the access and consideration accorded to green groups inadministration deliberations. But they also complained of theenvironmentalists' "overly optimistic view of what could beaccomplished."