Comments on: Clean Water Restoration Act Gains Detractors

By: Adam

Adam — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 13:27:45 +0000

Who wrote this article and what are his/her credentials

By: Taylor Houston

Taylor Houston — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 16:36:32 +0000

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).

By: Just Blaze

Just Blaze — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 19:50:11 +0000

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

By: John Rumpler

John Rumpler — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 18:12:20 +0000

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

By: John Rumpler

John Rumpler — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 18:10:26 +0000

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.