Curtailing the Clean Water Act

The lead story in The New York Times this morning is titled, “Rulings Restrict Clean Water Act, Hampering E.P.A.” It describes the effect of two decisions by the Supreme Court in preventing enforcement of the Clean Water Act.

Apparently, the controversy revolves around the word “navigable” as used in the legislation, “the discharge of pollutants into the navigable waters of the United States.” The Supreme Court limited the meaning of word navigable to preclude wetlands and other streams that might affect our drinking water, even though the legislative intent of Congress was clearly inclusive.

Now, in addition, legislation to remove the word “navigable” from the act has stirred a kerfluffle on the far right, with Glenn Beck saying it would give the federal government power over puddles and rainwater. (Sigh), do these men have no shame?

Meanwhile, the article describes the inability of the E.P.A. to prove jurisdiction and the resulting diminishment of prosections, even as polluters grow more bold as they realize their ability to circumvent the law.

Now, in addition to Glenn Beck, the American Farm Bureau Federation and the National Association of Home Builders are trying to prevent amendment of the law. And, in light of recent Supreme Court decisions about the power of corporations to contribute to political campaigns, who knows whether a new law would muster the majority needed to confirm its constitutionality?