The New York Times
May 27, 2007
Editorial
Cleaning Up
the Clean Water Act
A series of murky Supreme Court decisions have
left the agencies responsible for enforcing the Clean Water Act in a state of
confused paralysis, exposing millions of acres of wetlands and thousands of
miles of streams to illegal and destructive development. Companion bills in the
House and Senate would solve this problem by reaffirming the broad protections
intended by Congress when it passed the law nearly 35 years ago. These bills
deserve prompt passage.
Two factors have caused the confusion —
ambiguity in the law itself, and a Supreme Court looking for any excuse to
narrow the regulatory reach of the federal government.
There is little doubt that Congress originally
intended to extend federal protection to all the waters of the
A Supreme Court decision last June left the
matter more tangled than ever. One result is that for nearly a year the agency
responsible for carrying out the law — the Environmental Protection Agency —
has not been able to issue guidance to its field staff, opening the way to the
pollution of waters that should have been protected.
The bills before Congress would resolve the issue
in favor of the broadest possible protection by removing the word
"navigable" from the law and by specifying in detail the waters —
large rivers, tiny streams, ponds, lakes and wetlands — to be protected. All
of which, of course, makes perfect hydrological and ecological sense. The
destruction or pollution of any part of an aquatic system affects the integrity
of the whole system.