U.S. adopts limits on clean water law enforcement
Environmental
[##_1L|1106075551.jpg|width="140" height="135" alt=""|_##]The landmark U.S. law to fight water pollution will now apply only to bodies of water large enough for boats to use, and their adjacent wetlands, and will not automatically protect streams, the U.S. government said on Tuesday. Environmental groups said they fear the new policy will muddy the purpose of the federal Clean Water Act and put many smaller bodies of water at risk. Democrats in Congress have introduced legislation mandating protection of creeks, estuaries and other watersheds.
The Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers wrote the new guidelines after the Supreme Court split a year ago in a case about which waters fall under the Clean Water Act.
Because of the split decision, lower courts must decide on a case-by-case basis if the law applies to smaller water areas.
Four justices said the law was restricted to protecting navigable waters such as lakes and rivers, and bodies connected to them, while four argued the law had a broader reach.
The new guidelines were intended to help workers in the field determine if a waterway fell under the act, using the argument of Justice Anthony Kennedy, who did not join either side in the decision.
Benjamin Grumbles, EPA's assistant administrator for water, told reporters during a conference the new guidelines would provide greater consistency and predictability for the public.
Now his agency will regulate waters large enough to be used by boats that transport commerce, along with wetlands adjacent to them. It will decide on a case-by-case basis to regulate other tributaries that may affect main waterways.
'In effect, the EPA and the Corps are taking their field staff and the public out to the woods, blindfolding them, spinning them in circles, telling them to 'go west,' and calling that guidance,' complained Jon Devine, a senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council.
The EPA's new policy does not offer clear instructions to scientists in the field on how to protect surface waters, Devine said, and would eliminate protections for many streams. He also said the case-by-case decisions would inspire an onslaught of lawsuits and public confusion.
John Woodley, Assistant Secretary of the Army, said there would be no way to measure changes from the guidance.
But, he said, the waterways in the Supreme Court case would have been considered wetlands according to EPA's new guidance.
Angered by the Supreme Court's split, Democratic lawmakers last month introduced the 'Clean Water Restoration Act' that would drop the word 'navigable' from the original law.
Rep. James Oberstar, a Minnesota Democrat sponsoring the legislation, said the single edit would make clear that the EPA must also protect watersheds, which are often creeks or estuaries where water has collected.
Related listings
-
Supreme Court may Decide Contamination Case
Environmental 06/06/2007A high-stakes legal battle over a century of smelter contamination dumped into the Columbia River by a Canadian mining and smelting giant may be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.The court issued an order today inviting the U.S. Solicitor General – t...
-
US opens to global emissions-cutting goal
Environmental 05/31/2007[##_1L|1207075775.jpg|width="140" height="135" alt=""|_##]The United States will work with other nations in seeking a global goal for cutting greenhouse-gas emissions, President George W Bush said Thursday. Bush, in a speech looking ahead to next mon...
-
Schwarzenegger's deals distract from global warming
Environmental 05/29/2007[##_1L|1364031784.jpg|width="120" height="88" alt=""|_##]Since he made California the first state to limit greenhouse gases, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has been signing agreements with other state and foreign governments to address global warming. He...

Is Now the Time to Really Call a Special Education Lawyer?
IDEA, FAPE, CHILD FIND and IEPs: The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) guarantees all children with disabilities to a free appropriate public education (FAPE). FAPE starts with a school’s responsibility to identify that a child has a disability (Child Find) and create an Individualized Education Program (IEP) to suit the needs of the child.
Forte Law Group is one of only a very few law firms within the state of Connecticut that is dedicated to exclusively representing families and children with special needs.
Parents need to be persistent, dedicated and above all else aware of the many services and accommodations that their child is entitled to under the law. As early as this point within your child’s special education, many parents will often find themselves in the situation asking, “is now the time to really call a special education lawyer?” Here are a few things to consider when asking yourself that question.