Environmental Leader

From the Great Lakes to Puget Sound, from the Mississippi River to the Everglades, and from Chesapeake Bay to the Colorado – we can only protect the great waters of America if we safeguard the countless streams that feed them and the millions of acres of wetlands that help keep them clean. Perhaps that is why today, the Senate EPW committee rejected the spurious arguments of the powerful polluters cited in your article, and instead voted to restore protections vital to America’s great waters. As its name indicates, the Clean Water Restoration Act does no more than restore the original scope of the Clean Water Act that our nation adopted some 37 years ago – to protect all the waters of the United States.

John Rumpler | June 18th, 2009

John Rumpler is Senior Attorney for Environment America, a network of environmental advocacy organizations in 27 states.

John Rumpler | June 18th, 2009

Just wait until some greens don’t like the puddles in your driveway. lawsuits for everyone!!!!

Just Blaze | June 29th, 2009

Thank you for your article on the CWRA. Here’s how it works: The trust agency for the CWRA (currently USACE & EPA under current CWA) would issue guidance on what would be determined jurisdictional under the new CWRA, and current methods for delineation would be employed in the field. Tying a wetland to a navigable water body would not be a component of the jurisdictional determination, but could be a factor. Important to differentiate stream beds (bounded by ordinary high water marks) and wetlands (boundary determined in the field using delineation techniques). In practice, you’d probably see more isolated wetlands regulated, but under current Significant Nexus Test guidance for streambeds, I doubt that more streams would be regulated under a CWRA because the current SNT guidance is easily broadly applicable. In summary, as far as extent of regulation, you’d see a jurisdictional determinations resembling pre-SWANCC decision (which removed jurisdiction for isolated wetlands) for wetlands and streambed jurisdictions similar to what we have now post Rapanos decision (which provided for the SNT).

Taylor Houston | August 19th, 2009

Who wrote this article and what are his/her credentials

Adam | September 24th, 2009

It may be trite, but there is tremendous truth to the saying “the devil is in the detail.” And I can assure you by and large most lawyers (particularly the great minds) probably spend most of their time obsessing over the fine print.

In the context of the CWRA it may seem silly to be arguing over what it means for water to be “navigable” or not, when the real issue is keeping our water clean. But that particular fine print, and how it is interpreted, has a profound effect on the power of the federal government over the waters of the United States. And thus that fine print has an enormous impact on the lives of the people who are affected by those waters.

The things lawyers obsess about often seem unimportant – and perhaps sometimes they are – but far more often we obsess over them because they have enormous implications to how real people live their lives.

Dan Puroclean | March 3rd, 2010